eSafety Compendium Addendum 1 - iCar Support

eSafety Compendium
Addendum 1 - December 2006

eSafety Compendium
Addendum 1
December 2006
Produced by
eSafety Support
1

Table of contents
Introduction..................................................................................................7
Chapter 1 - European Commission eSafety Communications.............9
Chapter 2 - eSafety Forum Plenary meetings......................................12
2.1 5th eSafety Forum..........................................................................................13
2.1.1 Introduction............................................................................................13
2.1.2 Agenda ....................................................................................................13
2.1.3 Participants List.....................................................................................18
2.1.4 Minutes....................................................................................................21
2.1.4.1 High-Level Opening Remarks ..............................................................21
2.1.4.2 The four years of the eSafety initiative 2002-2006 – Part 1 ...............26
2.1.4.3 The four years of the eSafety Initiative 2002-2006 – Part 2...............28
2.1.4.4 Keynote Speech: Europe’s challenges in Mobility and Sustainability
(Mr. Ari Vatanen, MEP) .......................................................................................37
2.1.4.5 Update of the status of the eCall Memorandum of Understanding ..38
2.1.4.6 Statement by Norway (Mr. John Arild Jenssen, Ministry of
Transport and Communications of Norway) ......................................................39
2.1.4.7 The eSafety Forum: Plenary Conclusions on ongoing activities (Day
2) ..................................................................................................................40
2.1.4.8 The eSafety Forum: Plenary Conclusions on new activities - Part 145
2.1.4.9 The eSafety Forum: Plenary Conclusions on new activities - Part 249
2.1.4.10 eSafety Forum, the next four years: A Panel discussion ................58
2.1.4.11 Conclusions and Next Steps ..............................................................59
2.2 6th eSafety Forum..........................................................................................62
2.2.1 Introduction............................................................................................62
2.2.2 Agenda ....................................................................................................62
2.2.3 Participants List.....................................................................................65
2.2.4 Minutes....................................................................................................68
2.2.4.1 High Level Opening Remarks...............................................................68
2.2.4.2 Strategy Session: Moving ahead with the Intelligent Car Initiative
and eSafety in Europe............................................................................................69
2.2.4.3 The eSafety Working Groups (1)..........................................................71
2.2.4.4 Keynote Address: Mr Rudolf Strohmeier, Head of Cabinet of Ms
Viviane Reding, Member of the European Commission, responsible for
Information Society and Media ............................................................................74
2.2.4.5 The eSafety Working Groups (2)..........................................................75
2.2.4.6 Reducing the market introduction risk through Code of Practice, Dr
Juergen Schwarz, DaymlerChrysler ....................................................................78
2.2.4.7 Keynote: Meeting Europe’s challenges in Mobility and Sustainability
in the Member States, Dr Matti Roine, Min. of Transport and
Communications of Finland..................................................................................78
2.2.4.8 Information items...................................................................................79
3

2.2.4.9 Summary and next steps .......................................................................82
Chapter 3 - eSafety Steering Group meetings......................................85
3.1 19th eSafety Steering Group meeting ..........................................................86
3.1.1 Agenda ....................................................................................................86
3.1.2 Participants List.....................................................................................88
3.1.3 Minutes....................................................................................................89
3.2 20th eSafety Steering Group meeting ..........................................................97
3.2.1 Agenda ....................................................................................................97
3.2.2 List of Participants.................................................................................98
3.2.3 Minutes....................................................................................................99
3.3 21st eSafety Steering Group meeting .........................................................107
3.3.1 Agenda ..................................................................................................107
3.3.2 Participants List...................................................................................108
3.3.3 Minutes..................................................................................................109
3.4 22nd eSafety Steering Group meeting........................................................119
3.4.1 Agenda ..................................................................................................119
3.4.2 List of Participants...............................................................................120
3.4.3 Minutes..................................................................................................121
Chapter 4 - eSafety Observers meetings.............................................128
4.1 1st eSafety Observers Regional meeting (Vigo, Spain).............................129
4.1.1 Agenda ..................................................................................................129
4.1.2 Participants List...................................................................................131
4.1.3 Minutes..................................................................................................133
4.1.3.1 Welcoming Address .............................................................................133
4.1.3.2 eSafety Initiative...................................................................................133
4.1.3.3 Spanish Observers report on the eSafety status in Spain ................134
4.1.3.4 Portuguese and Spanish Stakeholders presentations .......................134
4.1.3.5 Discussion: next steps for safety in the EU and in the Iberian
Peninsula...............................................................................................................137
4.1.3.6 Conclusions...........................................................................................138
4.2 2nd eSafety Regional Observers Meeting (Göteborg, Sweden)...............139
4.2.1 Agenda ..................................................................................................139
4.2.2 Participants List...................................................................................140
4.2.3 Minutes..................................................................................................141
4.2.3.1 Welcoming Address .............................................................................141
4.2.3.2 eSafety Initiative...................................................................................141
4.2.3.3 Regional Observers report on the eSafety status..............................142
4.2.3.4 Regional Stakeholders presentations and debate..............................144
4.2.3.5 Closing Remarks and next steps.........................................................146
4.3 3rd eSafety Observers Regional Meeting (Turin, Italy)...........................148
4.3.1 Agenda ..................................................................................................148
4

4.3.2 List of Participants...............................................................................151
4.3.3 Minutes..................................................................................................153
4.3.3.1 Welcome and Key Notes......................................................................153
4.3.3.2 eSafety Initiative...................................................................................153
4.3.3.3 National Observers report on the eSafety status ..............................154
4.3.3.4 Austrian, Italian and Southern German Stakeholders presentations
155
4.3.3.5 Conclusions, Mr Juhani Jääskeläinen, European Commission ......159
4.4 4th eSafety Observers Regional Meeting (Athens, Greece) .....................161
4.4.1 Agenda ..................................................................................................161
4.4.2 List of Participants...............................................................................163
4.4.3 Minutes..................................................................................................165
4.4.3.1 Welcoming Address .............................................................................165
4.4.3.2 eSafety Initiative...................................................................................165
4.4.3.3 National Observers report on the eSafety status ..............................167
4.4.3.4 Greek Stakeholders presentations......................................................168
4.4.3.5 Discussion: next steps for eSafety in the EU and in Greece and Malta
170
4.5 4th eSafety Observers European meeting (Stockholm, Sweden and
Helsinki, Finland).....................................................................................................172
4.5.1 Agenda ..................................................................................................172
4.5.2 List of Participants...............................................................................174
4.5.3 Minutes..................................................................................................175
4.5.3.1 2 November 2006..................................................................................175
4.5.3.1.1 SESSION 1........................................................................................175
4.5.3.1.2 SESSION 2........................................................................................176
4.5.3.1.3 SESSION 3........................................................................................179
4.5.3.2 3 November 2006..................................................................................183
Chapter 5 - Progress of the 28 Recommendations ............................185
5.1 List of recommendations .............................................................................186
5.1.1 Accident Causation Data.....................................................................187
5.1.2 Impact assessment of safety systems ..................................................190
5.1.3 Human-Machine Interaction ..............................................................194
5.1.4 Road Map for Intelligent Integrated Safety ......................................197
5.1.5 Intelligent Integrated Road Safety Systems including ADAS..........201
5.1.6 The European Safety Map database ..................................................210
5.1.7 Emergency Calls (e-Calls) and E-112.................................................213
5.1.8 Real-time Traffic and Traveller Information (RTTI) for road safety
218
5.1.9 Motor vehicle type-approval legislation.............................................222
5.1.10 Safety systems standards and regulation in the EU: State of the art
224
5.1.11 Legal issues of market introduction of Intelligent Integrated Road
227
5.1.12 Ultra wide-band 24 GHz short range radar......................................229
5.1.13 Societal aspects.....................................................................................231
5

5.1.14 The different business cases ................................................................236
5.1.15 User Outreach ......................................................................................240
5.1.16 The eSafety Forum...............................................................................243
Chapter 6 - Progress of the eSafety Forum Working Groups and
Final Recommendations.......................................................................249
6.1 Progress of the eSafety Forum Working Groups......................................251
6.1.1 Accident Causation Analysis Working Group..................................251
6.1.2 Human Machine Interaction Working Group..................................251
6.1.3 Digital Maps Working Group.............................................................252
6.1.4 eCall Driving Group ............................................................................252
6.1.5 User Outreach Working Group..........................................................253
6.1.6 Implementation Road Maps Working Group...................................254
6.1.7 Research and Development Working Group ....................................255
6.1.8 International Cooperation Working Group......................................257
6.1.9 RTTI Working Group .........................................................................257
6.1.10 Communications Working Group......................................................258
6.1.11 ICT for Clean Mobility........................................................................259
6.2 Final Recommendations of the eSafety Forum Working Groups...........260
6.2.1 eCall DG Final Recommendations for the introduction of the Pan-
European eCall.....................................................................................................260
ANNEX I – 3 rd eSafety Communication - Bringing eCall back on
track - Action Plan
ANNEX II – Recommendations of the DG eCall for the introduction
of the Pan-European eCall
ANNEX III – Commission Recommendation on Safe and Efficient
In-Vehicle Information and Communication Systems: Update of the
European Statement of Principles on Human Machine Interface.
ANNEX IV – Eurobarometer. Users’ Attitudes towards Electronic
Active Safety Systems in Vehicles: Qualitative Study in Six European
Countries
6

INTRODUCTION
7

Modern society depends heavily on mobility. From the society’s point of view, an
efficient transport system is the engine of our economy. But there are also serious
problems associated with transport, such as congestion of road network and urban areas,
harmful effects on the environment and public health, waste of energy and, above all,
accidents. The high cost of fatalities, injuries and material damage caused by road
accidents remains one of the major societal challenges in Europe, further increased by
the EU enlargement which brought the number of Member States to 25 and increased
demand for transport services.
Road safety is a concern for all citizens in Europe and finding solutions to save lives on
the European roads is of interest to all Europeans. eSafety is a joint industry-public sector
initiative driven by the European Commission and co-chaired by ERTICO – ITS Europe
and ACEA (Association of European Car Manufacturers), with the aim to promote the
development, deployment, and use of Intelligent VEhicle Safety Systems to enhance road
safety throughout Europe. Sustainable solutions can only be created together with all
stakeholders on the European level.
On May 2006 eSafety Support - a project whose aim is to stimulate and monitor the
activities, progress and results generated by the eSafety initiative - produced the eSafety
Compendium, a document summarising all the relevant information and gathering the
material produced by the eSafety Forum and Working Groups since the launch of the
initiative, and the material produced by other relevant external bodies concerned by
eSafety, such as:.
o The 28 eSafety Recommendations and a report on the progress,
o The European Commission eSafety Communications,
o The eSafety Forum High Level and Plenary Meeting Conclusions,
o The eSafety Working Group history and Final Recommendations,
o Other safety-related documents.
This Addendum follows the same aim and structure, and considers all the material
corresponding to the further activities undergone during the period May 2006 -
December 2006.
8

Chapter 1 - EUROPEAN
COMMISSION ESAFETY
COMMUNICATIONS
9

On 23 November 2006 the European Commission has proposed an urgent set of actions
to restart moves to roll out the in-vehicle emergency call eCall in Europe. The
Commission-industry action plan agreed in 2005 to add eCall to all new cars in Europe
by 2009 has stalled, warns the Commission status report of 23 November. While there
has been significant progress at European level, some Member States have been slow to
invest in infrastructure, and industry now refuses further action.
"We urgently need to get eCall back on track," said Viviane Reding, EU Commissioner for
Information Society and Media. "We have the technology. Now we need industry and Member
States to move up a gear and help us make Europe's roads safer sooner rather than later."
The initial 2005 Commission-industry agreement contained a framework for rolling
out eCall in Europe, targeting Member States which had to invest in emergency rescue
service infrastructure. The Commission also agreed to monitor progress closely, and to
take further action if eCall deployment was endangered. As eCall is based on the single
European emergency number 112 and its location enhancement, E112, their
implementation was also followed.
This led to serious concerns. While the Commission has taken several measures
supporting eCall deployment and standardization, and some Member States have already
started eCall deployment, many are not on track with the necessary infrastructure.
Industry has already reacted with a new deployment timetable of 2010 instead of 2009.
The Commission's response is the Communication adopted on 23 November, "Bringing
eCall back on track – Action Plan". It presents two actions that are crucial for making
eCall a reality:
1. Member States have been given clear actions with deadlines for solving the
remaining legal, technical and socio-economic issues and proceeding with the
necessary 112, E112 and eCall infrastructures;
2. Industry is asked to renew its commitment to eCall. The Commission will also
start negotiations with the associations of the automotive industry on a voluntary
agreement for introducing eCall devices into vehicles.
The Commission will provide further assistance by working on privacy and
standardization, and through field tests and public awareness campaigns, as part of the
Intelligent Car initiative within the Commission's i2010 strategy - a European
Information Society for growth and jobs.
The Communications to the Council and the European Parliament on eSafety can be
found in annex I of this Addendum.
10

Chapter 2 - ESAFETY
FORUM PLENARY
MEETINGS
12

2.1 5 th safety Forum
2.1.1 Introduction
Meeting in Brussels on 2-3 May 2006, the eSafety Forum launched a series of new
activities aimed at supporting the development and implementation of smarter, safer and
cleaner vehicles.
As a joint platform bringing together over 150 active members representing all road
safety stakeholders, the eSafety Forum is largely recognised by both Member States and
the larger international community as the driving force in promoting intelligent vehicle
safety systems - eSafety - in Europe.
Several high level speakers contributed to the Forum’s May meeting, including Fabio
Colasanti, Director General of the Commission’s Information Society and Media DG;
Arnold van Zyl, CEO of ERTICO; Ivan Hodac, Secretary General of ACEA; Monica
Sundström from the Swedish Road Administration; Dr Csaba Csapodi from the
Permanent Representation of Hungary to the EU; MEPs Malcolm Harbour and Ari
Vatanen, as well as numerous Industry representatives.
The Forum reviewed the eSafety Initiative’s progress to date, adopting the
recommendations of numerous eSafety Working Groups, including those of the
Communication, Implementation Road Map and Heavy Duty Working Groups.
Particular attention was devoted to the recommendations of the eCall and User Outreach
Working Groups.
eCall is an in-vehicle emergency call that can be launched either manually or
automatically via sensors after an accident has occurred. Forum members endorsed the
eCall Driving Group’s recommendations, encouraging all stakeholders to work together
to complete the last remaining open issues, with a particular focus on developing a
business case for eCall and exploring the use of incentives to encourage the speedy
implementation of the service. Member States were urged to sign the eCall Memorandum
of Understanding, launched by ERTICO, ACEA and the Commission in 2004. A
proposal was also made to initiate an analysis of an eCall system designed for twowheelers.
The User Outreach Working Group’s recommendation to establish an eSafety
Communication Platform was positively received and endorsed by the Forum members.
Focusing on three main pillars – media work, marketing and political work, the Platform
will work closely with communication and campaign managers, media and marketing
experts. The FIA Foundation will take the leading role in the establishment of the
Platform, but Forum members emphasised the need for the broad involvement of all
relevant stakeholders. As its first task, the Communication Platform will explore the
possibility of launching a promotion campaign for Electronic Stability Control (ESC).
Further broadening the work of the eSafety Forum, participants approved the creation of
two new Working Groups: “ICT for Clean Mobility” and “Services-Oriented
Architecture”.
This section contains the detailed minutes of this meeting as they were made available in
deliverable D2.3 - Minutes from 5th Plenary Meeting of 2-3 May, Brussels, released in
June 2006.
2.1.2 Agenda
Day 1
13

Moderator: Mr. Fabio Colasanti, Director General, DG Information Society and Media,
European Commission
10.00 – 10.30 Registration and Coffee
10.30 – 12.30 High-Level Opening Remarks
Mr. Fabio Colasanti, European Commission
Mr. Ivan Hodac, ACEA
Dr. Arnold van Zyl, ERTICO
Mr. Rui Camolino, ASECAP
Ms. Monica Sundström, SRA
Dr. Csaba Csapodi, Permanent Representation of Hungary to the EU
Mr. Malcolm Harbour, European Parliament
12.30 – 14.00 Lunch
The four years of the eSafety Initiative 2002-2006 – Part 1
Strategic Overview of the eSafety Initiative
Mr. André Vits, Head of Unit, DG Information Society and
Media, European Commission
eSafety Implementation status in the EU - Overview
Mr. Jacob Bangsgaard, eSafety Support
14.00 – 15.30 The four years of the eSafety Initiative 2002-2006 – Part 2
Parallel Session 1
Moderator: Mr. Daniel Augello, Renault
Implementation Road Map recommendations
Prof. Risto Kulmala, VTT
Heavy Duty Vehicles recommendations
Mr. Francisco Ferreira, DG Information Society and Media,
European Commission
Accident Causation Analysis recommendations and TRACE
project
Mr. José Manuel Barrios, TRACE Project
Parallel Session 2
Moderator: Ms. Monica Sundström, SRA
Human-Machine Interaction and Commission Recommendation
Dr. Alan Stevens, TRL
Real-Time Traffic and Travel Information recommendations
Dr. Heinz Friedrichs, Bosch
14

15.30 – 16.00 Coffee
Digital Maps recommendations
Mr. Ad Bastiaansen, TeleAtlas
Chair: Mr. André Vits, Head of Unit, DG Information Society and
Media, European Commission
16.00 – 16.30 Keynote Speech: Europe’s challenges in Mobility and
Sustainability
Mr. Ari Vatanen, MEP
16.30 – 17.15 Summary of Day 1 and the next steps
Reports by the chairs of the Parallel Sessions
Plenary Conclusions and adoption of the Working Groups’
recommendations
European Commission
17.15 – 17.30 Update of the status of the eCall MoU
European Commission
Statement by Norway
Mr. John Arild Jenssen, Ministry of Transport and
17.30
Communications of Norway
Close of Day 1
19.30 Dinner: Hotel Metropole
15

Day 2
09.00 – 09.30 Coffee
Chair: Mr. Ivan Hodac, ACEA
09.30 – 11.00 The eSafety Forum: Plenary Conclusions on ongoing
activities
eCall Driving Group – Mr. Michael Nielsen, ERTICO
- Presentation of the Position Paper and proposal for Plenary
Decisions on the Pan-European eCall
- Discussion and Adoption of the eCall Position Paper
11.00 – 11.30 Coffee
User Outreach – Mr. Johann Grill, FIA
- Presentation of a proposal for establishment of the
Communications Platform and launching of the pilot
campaign
eSafety Support – Dr. Alessandro Carrotta, eSafety Support
11.30 – 12.30 The eSafety Forum: Plenary Conclusions on new activities
Part 1
ICT for Clean Mobility - A new WG
Dr. Arnold van Zyl.
Service Oriented Architectures
Mr. Michael Nielsen, ERTICO
RTD and Security Working Group
Dr. Ulf Palmquist, Eucar
12.30 – 14.00 Lunch
Chair: Dr. Arnold van Zyl, ERTICO
14.00 – 15.00 The eSafety Forum: Plenary Conclusions on new activities
Part 2
Communications Working Group
Mr. Uwe Daniel, Bosch
Fuel Efficiency in road transport. Benefits of the use of ICT,
driver coaching, other methods
Mr. Anders Lindelöf, Greater Than
15.00 – 15.50 eSafety Forum and the i2010 Intelligent Car Initiative
16

15.50 – 16.10 Coffee
i2010 Intelligent Car Initiative – an update
Mr. Fabrizio Minarini, European Commission
Eurobarometer survey on eSafety, Preliminary results
Mr. Daniel Debomy, OPTEM
16.10 – 17.00 eSafety Forum, the next four years: A Panel discussion
Moderator: Dr. Arnold van Zyl, ERTICO
Panelists: Mr.André Vits, European Commission
Mr. David Ward, FIA Foundation,
Dr. Csaba Csapodi, Perm.Rep. of Hungary to the EU
Mr. Michael Hollingsworth, ACEA
Mr. Rui Camolino, ASECAP
Mr. Henrik Forsgren, Volvo Car Corporation
Mr. James Rosenstein, Ygomi LLC
17.00 – 17.15 Conclusions and Next Steps
Dr. Arnold van Zyl, ERTICO
17.15 – 17.30 A.O.B. and Next Meetings
17.30 Adjourn
17

2.1.3 Participants List
Surname Name Organization
ADHEMAR Laetitia RENAULT
ANDRÉ Paulo Auto-Estradas do Atlantico,SA
AUGELLO Daniel Renault
BALLAUX Louis Honda Motor Europe Ltd
BANGSGAARD Jacob eSafety Support
BASTIAANSEN Ad Tele Atlas
BLEVARQUE Vincent ERTICO
BOETHIUS Eva Swedish National Road Authority
BOLTE Fritz Bundesanstalt für Strassenwesen
BONARI Catherine SETRA-Ministry of Transport
BRUCHERT Philipp Hill & Knowlton
BUCK Manfred DaimlerChrysler AG
BURGESS James ERTICO
CARROTTA Alessandro eSafety Support
CATER Ian Traffic Wales
CHAUFTON Stéfanie ERTICO
COLASANTI Fabio European Commission, DG INFSO
CONTRERAS Jordi CTAG
CRAPS Renilde Flanders DRIVE
CSAPODI Csaba
Permanent Representation of Hungary
to the Europaen Union
CURCI Natalino Polidream/Autostrade per l'Italia
DANIEL Uwe BOSCH
DAVILA GONZALEZ Emilio European Commission, DG INFSO
DEBOMY Daniel OPTEM
DEITERS Oliver DEKRA
DUPUIS
EIDEBERG AF
Sophie ERTICO
ZÄHRINGEN Johan Hill & Knowlton
FERREIRA Francisco European Commission, DG INFSO
FLURY-HÉRARD Bernard Ministère de l'Equipement
FORSGREN Henrik Volvo Car Corporation
FRANZEN Stig Chalmers Industritkenik
FRIEDRICHS Heinz BOSCH
GELAU Christhard BAST - Federal Highway Research Institute
GILLEBEERT Roland CLEPA
GOODWIN Frazer ETSC - European Transport Safety Council
GRILL Johann AIT&FIA European Bureau
HAKIMA Ben Azzouz Comité européen des assurances
HALLSTRÖM Bengt SRA
HAON Sylvain POLIS
HAUB Thomas European Commission, DG INFSO
HEIBER Irmgard European Commission
18

HOADLEY Suzanne POLIS
HODAC Ivan ACEA
HOLMBERG Elina European Commission, DG INFSO
HORNCASTLE David CONNEXIS
HUERTA Jaime ITS Spain
INCHAURZA Eduardo AZERTIA
JÄÄSKELÄINEN Juhani European Commission, DG INFSO
JACOBS René BELGIAN ROAD RESEARCH CENTRE
JAEKEL Elisa Siemens AG
JAVIER RUIZ F AZERTIA
JEFFERY David University of Southampton
JENSSEN John Arild
Ministry of Transport and Communications
Norway
JOHANSSON Leif Greater Than S.A.
KASCHNITZ Rudolf Permanent Representation of Austria to the EU
KIST Stella ATX GmbH
KOMPFNER Paul ERTICO
KULMALA Risto VTT Building and Transport
LAURELL Anu Ministry of Transport and Communications
LIDELÖF Anders Greater Than S.A.
LINDENBACH Ágnes ITS Hungary Association
LINDHOLM Rasmus ERTICO
LOVELL Catherine Department for Transport, UK
LUCAS Antonio DGT-University of Valencia
LUMBRERAS Cristina O.A. Madrid 112
MAEURER Hans-Juergen DEKRA Automobil
MALCZYK Axel
German Insurance Institute for Traffic
Engineering
MALENSTEIN Jan
Dutch National Police Agency (KLPD), EU
Affairs
MARINO Filippo FEMA
MIETZNER Rudolf COMeSafety / Softlab GmbH
MINAEV Igor ETSI Radio Competence Centre
MINARINI Fabrizio European Commission, DG INFSO
MONCLÚS GONZALÉZ Jesús FITSA FOUNDATION
MOUTAL Valérie European Commission, DG INFSO
NIELSEN Michael ERTICO
OCHEL Gerd
European Telecommunications Standards
Institute ETSI
OLSEN Sigurd Norwegian Public Roads Administration
PALMQUIST Ulf EUCAR
PARK Su-Birm Delphi Delco Electronics Europe GMBH
PAUL-MORANDINI Olivier European Emergency Number Association
PEKÁR Ferenc
PERLOT Antonio
European Commission, DG Enterprise and
Industry
FEMA (Federation of European Motorcyclists'
Association)
19

PUTZ Stéphane eSafety Support
QUOIDBACH Liévin Navteq
RAVIGLIONE Cesare ISMB Instituto Superiore Mario Boella
ROSENSTEIN James Ygomi LLC
SAHLQVIST Erika European Commission, DG INFSO
SAURET Pere RACC
SCHOLTEN Joachim BMW Group
SEECK André Federal Highway Research Institute (BASt)
SERGEYS Filip Honda Motor Europe Ltd
SILVA Irina eSafety Support
SPELL Sabine Volkswagen
SPOORMANS Thomas RENAULT
STEVENS Alan TRL Limited
SUGANO Takashi Nissan Motor Manufacturing Ltd.
SUNDSTRÖM Monica SRA
SVENSK Per-Olof Triona AB
TERPSTRA Tjerk
Ministerie van Binnenlandse Zaken en
Koninkrijksrelaties
THOMAS Pete VSRC Loughborough University
TRÂN Aurélie Toyota Motor Europe
TVRZSKY Tomáš Telematix Services a.s.
ULMER Berthold DaimlerChrysler AG
VAN DE KRAATS Henri IMA BENELUX
VAN ESSEN Rob Tele Atlas
VAN LAER Peter Agoria
VAN MULKEN Hilde Dutch National Police Agency (KLPD)
VAN ZYL Arnold ERTICO - ITS Europe
VERDEE Serge JAMA Europe
VINTI Settimio Ministry for Innovation and Tecnologies, Italy
VITS André European Commission, DGINFSO
VON TROSTPRUGG Alexander Weiss ALTEA
WARD Chris DFT
WEINSTOCK Richard Connexis
WOCKER Karl-Heinz Siemens AG
WURZEL Dietmar DLR Brussels Office
ZHU Linda Tele Atlas
ZIMMERMEYER Gunter Robert Bosch GmbH
20

2.1.4 Minutes
2.1.4.1 High-Level Opening Remarks
Mr. Fabio Colasanti (European Commission DG INFSO), opened the meeting by
reminding the audience about the work that had been done including the White Paper on
road safety and the Action plan (2001-2002), the launch of the eSafety initiative (2002),
the report produced by the European Parliament in October 2005 and the internal report
in the beginning of this year.
Mr. Colasanti indicated that some progress had been made but that we need to step up
our efforts to achieve our goals.
He recalled briefly which were the eSafety Forum Working Groups. The value of the
eSafety Forum is that it provides a forum of comprehensive and consistent approach to
the eSafety issues. An issue that exemplifies the type of problems that the eSafety Forum
has, is implementation, bringing people together or making things happen in areas where
the technology has already delivered what it had to deliver, is the eCall area. The report
presented by Mr. Titley has been adopted but more needs to be done. Mr. Colasanti
declared that eCall was a priority for the European Commission.
He commented that User Outreach was another important issue. The eSafety Forum
needs to address citizens at large and we will have to use all events that might come up.
Mr. Colasanti concluded by announcing that the Intelligent Car Initiative had been
launched.
Mr. Ivan Hodac (ACEA) commented that the Forum had to focus on implementation.
He noted that safety was absolutely essential for the automotive industry.
Mr. Hodac thanked the European Commission for their driving role. He explained that
in the past, most of what had been done was on a voluntary basis, without regulation or
directives. It was market driven. Mr. Hodac hopes that this will not change.
He noted that the number of stakeholders had increased. One of these categories are the
public authorities. In the case of eCall, which he considers as a good example, the
cooperation of public authorities is needed. Things are more complicated because
understanding and better cooperation is needed.
Mr. Hodac underlined that he regretted that only seven Member States and Switzerland
had signed the eCall MoU. According to him, without the cooperation of the public
authorities, we would never get this up and running. Technology is ready to be put into
cars however public authorities, telecoms and a business case are needed.. He expressed
his disappointment regarding the low number of signatures of the eCall MoU.
Mr. Hodac mentioned that the Intelligent Car Initiative did not mean only car, but also
intelligent mobility. It does not involve only the vehicles but also the infrastructure. He
stated that the automotive industry would play a role in this but the other stakeholders
are needed as well.
21

He concluded by insisting on the importance to keep the vehicles affordable.
Dr. Arnold van Zyl (ERTICO) stated that the mobility sector was a key driver for
competitiveness and jobs in Europe and the instrument of creating the single market. In
this context, mobility is much more than cars, trucks, trains, boats and planes. It is
important to recognise that mobility is provided by a system consisting in the vehicles,
the networks of roads, ports, stations and airports, the associated communication and
fuelling infrastructure and the users. The mobility sector contributes around 20% of the
GDP and 10% of the jobs in Europe.
Dr. van Zyl indicated that the mobility system faces major challenges and stresses,
namely:
- ensure the safety of all mobility users,
- maintain the security of the travellers, goods and infrastructure,
- enhance the efficiency of the networks for the transport of people and for the
distribution of goods, and
- mitigate the environmental impact of the mobility activity.
He stated that eSafety had made major advances, in particular with respect to the
autonomous active safety systems and with the conceptualisation and the development
of public service applications, like eCall. He stressed to the Member States the need to
have someone completing the service chain of eCall.
Dr. van Zyl pointed out that, as a consequence of the activities of the eSafety Forum, the
consumer demand for the advanced safety system products and information, especially
ESP, had increased.
ERTICO is focusing now in particular in the area beyond autonomous vehicle
components, that is to say the area of cooperative systems. This is the area in which
vehicles communicate with each other, with the users and with the infrastructure. The
challenge of ensuring the safety of mobility users can only be addressed in a systematic
way. This system approach should involve the users, the vehicles and the infrastructure.
We should move to a system where we have intelligent users in smart cars on smart
roads.
Dr. van Zyl is convinced that the ITS approach of collecting, processing and sharing data
within a system as well as setting up the associated architectures to make those systems
communicate and respond had a huge potential not only on the issue of safety but also in
the areas of security, efficiency and environment. What fails are the legislative and
framework conditions such as a signature to the eCall MoU.
He concluded by stating that he looks forward to the eSafety Forum developing and
extending to address the other issues like enhance security, enhance efficiency and
mitigate the effects on the environment.
Mr. Rui Camolino (ASECAP) defined ASECAP as a major defender of payment use
of roads which aggregates 16 members and 128 companies. As a long term objective
22

ASECAP aims at assuring users a safe and quiet travel in an adequate timing, with no
stress and minimum environmental damages.
Mr. Camolino reported on ASECAP’s the major points of concern,:
- the reduction of the number of casualties according to the European
Commission objectives,
- the reduction of the time of response to incidents,
- the reduction of motorway and bridge congestion levels by improving traffic
management systems,
- the reduction of stress levels of users by improving information on road
incidents,
- a contribution to the reduction of pollution levels on both motorways and
bridges by promoting measures to decrease levels of congestion and
- the promotion of the institutional cooperation with other organisations.
Mr. Camolino stated that the reduction of the number of casualties should come basically
from the adoption of best designing construction techniques.
Concerning response time, the main action lines should concentrate on improving the
process for early detection of incidents, reducing time to activate necessary means to
assist the incidence either by improving process or by making complementary
partnerships and making sure that areas under concession responsibility are considered
by the eCall DG in its specification.
Mr. Camolino indicated that, to reduce congestion levels, the stakeholders should
concentrate their attention on improving traffic management systems and improving
information to users, offering alternative solutions to allow users travel as fast as possible
within the safety regulations.
The reduction of the users level of stress must be achieved mainly through improvement
of information services so that users are informed as much as possible of events before
they face them while driving.
The ASECAP contribution to the reduction of the pollution level shall come from the
reduction of the congestion level and the adoption of design techniques.
Concerning the improvement of the institutional cooperation, ASECAP will commit to
improve its cooperation with the European Commission, in particular with DG TREN
and DG INFSO. Mr. Camolino stated that cooperation was a bidirectional process that
should be taken by all parties involved by a relationship in a way that confidence was
increasingly gained between the parties.
He concluded by indicating that in the short term, ASECAP would be giving its next step
approaching DG INFSO strategy, informing the eSafety Working Groups where it saw a
possible cooperation.
Ms. Monica Sundström (SRA) stated that the welfare of society in our way of living
required extensive mobility but that transport also gave rise to severe problems related to
congestion, the environment, public health, energy consumption and safety. Concerning
causes of accidents, current research indicate that human error is involved in over 90%
23

of accidents and that in almost 75% of the cases, only the human mistake is to blame.
Ms. Sundström stressed the need to make the road transport system more tolerant to
human errors and misjudgments.
Safety in road transport is a direct outcome of the performance of interactions between
the driver, the vehicle, the road infrastructure and the environment. In Sweden, the
Government has presented a program for improving road safety with the following
cornerstones: safer roads, safer vehicles and better compliance with road traffic
regulations. According to the Swedish Road Safety Program, new techniques and
applications need to be implemented to measures concerning safety problems. It has
been stated that the measures proposed must be based on cooperation between those
responsible for the road traffic system and the road users. The SRA and the Government
believe that the key to a successful implementation of these systems is to increase user
awareness and to create market forces for better safety rather than to enforce new rules
and new legislation.
Ms. Sundström indicated that the development of new techniques had the potential to
solve different kinds of problems related to road traffic and transport. Some of them
contribute to decreased congestion problems, some of them reduce the environmental
impact due to traffic and some of these solutions constitute advanced safety systems.
Very often, new solutions have a positive effect on more than one of the problem areas.
Ms. Sundström stated that the welfare of the road users was a concern for the national
road administrations as well as for the telematics industry. Traffic safety is regulated by
national governmental policies and it is a responsibility for the national road
administrations to achieve the society targets. The industry wants to produce products
that customers want to buy. The safety issues represent a valuable competitive asset for
the car industry as well as an undisputable responsibility. New vehicles with advanced
functions increase the demands on all actors involved. Since there is a rapid
development, it is important that the society identify products it wants to support.
Ms. Sundström noted that the customer needed help to invest in the most efficient new
technologies. There are activities from the society supporting this process. She stressed
the importance of raising public awareness.
Ms. Sundström stated that a systematic approach was necessary where infrastructure,
vehicles and users were analysed and worked together. It seems necessary that they are
compatible with each other and support the user. There is a need for joint effort to
develop the road transport system with all partners involved. She stressed the importance
of having the eCall MoU signed by all Member States.
Ms. Sundström concluded by highlighting the fact that the eSafety Forum had had
interesting four years of work and discussions and was looking forward to the future
fruitful development both of the road infrastructure and vehicle related applications and
the cooperation between them based on identified social targets in cooperation between
the authorities, the industry and the road users.
Dr. Csaba Csapodi (Permanent Representation of Hungary to the EU) pointed out
that the enlargement had an impact on the ambitious target set out in the 2001 White
24

Paper on the European Transport Policy for 2010, namely to halve the number of road
fatalities by 2010.
It created new challenges. The reason is that the road safety level in the new Member
States still remains low compared to most of the other Member States. In the UK,
Sweden and the Netherlands, 60 people per 1 million inhabitants die yearly in accidents.
At least twice as many are killed in the new Member States due to unadapted road
networks, the lack of enforcement and poorly maintained vehicle fleets.
Mr. Csapodi stated that improving these figures was of high importance for the whole of
Europe to achieve safer mobility across the European Union. The deployment and the
use of information and communication technologies can increase road safety in the new
Member States by giving tools to analyse the causes of the higher rates of accidents and
to find solutions.
The active involvement of the new Member States in the activities of the eSafety Forum
can bring huge benefits for both old and new Member States, at least in the following 6
fields:
- collecting the local accident data according to common standards and analysing
the causes,
- producing and maintaining certified digital maps data bases with eSafety attributes
with the participation of public authorities,
- introducing real-time traffic and travel information systems on the major road
networks that are based on the technical recommendations of the RTTI WG,
- taking part in R&D activities especially in the development of cooperative
systems,
- applying better technologies for enforcement of speed control both on the
motorways and in the urban areas, and
- upgrading the PSAPs for the emergency services.
Mr. Csapodi insisted that the more new Member States participate in the various
activities of the Working Groups, the sooner these new technologies would spread over
the enlarged European Union. A new area for the User Outreach WG could be to
involve more and more new Member States. Currently, only three Member States,
Hungary, the Czech Republic and Poland, are taking part in these activities.
Mr. Csapodi concluded by mentioning that a new idea being currently discussed in the
Czech Republic was to create a ministry under the title “Intelligent Infrastructure
Ministry”, which would involve the infrastructure, the vehicle and the telecommunication
and information technology innovations under one umbrella.
Mr. Malcolm Harbour (European Parliament) underlined that thanks to all the
stakeholders the eSafety initiative has made substantial progress. He asked the Forum not
to underestimate the political and societal importance of this initiative. The work of
eSafety has been an outstanding example of what has now become much more
fashionable, which is so called integrated policy making. It was and continues to be an
important example of marrying together the potential of electronic communications and
focusing on a particular sector. By doing that, one has to engage a lot of people.
25

Mr. Harbour noted that this year, we were at a crucial political stage in the evolution of
the whole eSafety program. eSafety has now been definitively recognised as part of the
overall set of policies that will underpin the competitiveness of the automotive sector.
Mr. Harbour stressed that there were crucial things that needed to be done now. We
should engage the public, customers and road users and we have to deepen our political
engagement at all levels. The two things go together. Mr. Harbour stated that we had to
raise the awareness among car users about the value and importance of eSafety tools in
the products that they buy but also the potential of the infrastructures that they use,
because they are all voters. The voters should be putting pressure on governments to say:
”Why can’t we have eCall?” We need to work better to outreach the members of national
parliaments.
Mr. Harbour pointed out the need to have customers to buy into this process as well.
The same way that the EuroNCAP program has been so successful in sensitising
consumers to the safety equipment on their vehicles – and that has become part of the
marketing of vehicles, we are starting to see some of the car manufacturers promoting
some of the active safety tools. The consumers will demand the best and that will
stimulate the sort of investments that we need.
But road users should also be demanding the best in road infrastructure and in safety
improvement in other areas and Mr. Harbour thinks that it is where much more work is
needed. We must not only engage our Members of Parliament but we must also engage
our local politicians. In many cases, local politicians are making the decisions about
spending money on road infrastructure and what to put in that road infrastructure. Mr.
Harbour pointed out that the work going on in eSafety was now mature enough to be
able to really start a movement in that direction.
Trans-European Network road building projects should be the pilot programs. These
should really demonstrate the possibilities of intelligent highway investments. Investment
approval for these programs should be tied in to the proposals of those programs
demonstrating that they have taken on board the needs to build in the intelligent
infrastructure. That is part of looking at an integrated approach in sensitising the local
politicians.
He concluded by telling the Forum that he was very pleased that the European
Parliament was now much more engaged in promoting eSafety. Gary Titley’s report on
eCall has had a lot of favourable press publicity. Mr. Harbour thinks that with more
political pressure, we can move these projects through more quickly. He stated that a
next work would be to try to establish a network of supporters throughout the political
system, at local and national levels, throughout the European Union. He assured the
Forum that it had a lot of political support behind and that he shared its determination to
make sure that this project would really deliver tremendous results.
2.1.4.2 The four years of the eSafety initiative 2002-2006 – Part 1
Strategic overview of the eSafety Initiative
Mr André Vits (Head of Unit, DG INFSO, European Commission) gave a strategic
overview of the eSafety Initiative.
26

After having recalled the birth of eSafety and the role of the eSafety Working Group, Mr.
Vits outlined the first and the second eSafety Communications (respectively on ICT for
Safe and Intelligent Vehicles and on eCall). Then he presented the Working Groups that
completed their activities: Heavy Duty Vehicles, Real-Time Traffic and Travel
Information, Digital Maps, Human Machine Interaction and Accident Causation
Analysis. The active Working Groups are Communications, Research and Technological
Development, User Outreach, International Cooperation and Implementation Road
Map. Two new Working Groups, Service Oriented Architecture and ICT for Clean
Mobility, have been created.
Mr. Vits also introduced the i2010 Intelligent Car Initiative and its three pillars, namely
the eSafety initiative and the eSafety Forum, RTD in Information and Communications
Technologies and Awareness raising Actions.
The presentation was concluded by recalling that this meeting would follow the objective
of:
- making an overview of the progress achieved so far in the eSafety initiative,
aiming to adopt the recommendations presented by the eSafety Working Groups
(Day1)
- deciding on the next steps on the priority topics eCall and User Outreach, on the
basis of the recommendations of the Working Groups (Day 2)
- presenting the new Working Groups and Commission initiatives, in particular the
Intelligent Car Initiative and the Eurobarometer study, and discussing the next
four years within eSafety (Day 2).
eSafety Implementation status in the EU
Mr. Jacob Bangsgaard (eSafety Support) reported on the implementation status of
eSafety, focusing on national activities.
Mr. Bangsgaard started by presenting the situation of eSafety implementation in a few
European countries. The Netherlands is one of the active countries in the field of eSafety.
They are for example working towards the deployment of eCall. Spain has started to be
more actively involved in eSafety activities, whereas Sweden has always shown a very
strong participation in eSafety and has already looked into incentives for the deployment
of eCall. Finland is at the forefront in Europe for eCall deployment.
Mr. Bangsgaard added that the new Member States were catching up on several issues. In
particular, attention to eCall is growing, especially in the Czech Republic and Hungary.
Presenting initiatives undertaken in Romania, Mr. Bangsgaard said that such initiatives
outside the EU should be supported.
He outlined the work of the International Cooperation WG, specifying that for some
emerging markets, focus on road safety and even eSafety, as a way to improve road
safety, was increasingly strong. India, for example, would like to learn from Europe on
how to manage the increase in the number of vehicles on its roads. India is very
interested in eCall, integrated traffic management, mobility behaviour and crash testing.
27

As far as China is concerned, the main focus is on collecting and broadcasting data for
the traffic situation. Mr. Bangsgaard stressed that whereas some European countries had
not yet had a full roll-out of TMC, China saw it as one of its key priorities. In general,
India and China are very eager to do a full deployment as quickly as possible of some
eSafety applications.
Mr. Bangsgaard concluded that the Forum could learn a lot from experiences in different
countries and from eSafety stakeholders’ initiatives.
2.1.4.3 The four years of the eSafety Initiative 2002-2006 – Part 2
Implementation Road Map Working Group Recommendations
Prof. Risto Kulmala reported on the results and recommendations of the
Implementation Road Map Working Group, which he co-chairs with Mr Hans-
Jürgen Mäurer
He presented the objectives of the Working Group, the approach that the group had
adopted for analysing the implementation potential of the intelligent vehicle safety
systems, the rationale for choosing the priority systems and examples of the
implementation road maps, namely Lane Departure Warning, ESP and Dynamic Traffic
Management.
Prof. Kulmala also presented a list of recommendations concerning the deployment of
in-vehicle systems and infrastructure-related systems. As far as in-vehicle systems are
concerned, he recommended that customer awareness be enhanced via European
campaigns. Governments and insurance companies should give financial/fiscal
incentives to customers to buy vehicles equipped with such systems whereas regulatory
actions should only be considered as the last option. All stakeholders should develop
feasible sustainable business models for each application. The Working Group also
recommends that EuroNCAP incorporate systems that are mature enough and that the
eSafety stakeholders follow the instructions of the HMI WG. Lastly, the stakeholders
should continue R&D efforts to develop new solutions for in-vehicle safety systems as
well as to evaluate the effects of eSafety systems on safety, economy and employment.
In order to increase and accelerate the deployment of safety beneficial infrastructurerelated
eSafety systems, Prof. Kulmala, on the behalf of the Implementation Road Map
WG, recommended that the Member States ensure the deployment of economically
feasible systems and services. The European Commission should support it. According
to the Working Group, the industry, the European Commission and the Member States
should take actions together to ensure that digital maps with the information required by
the eSafety systems would be developed for all roads in the Member States. The
European Commission and the Member States should agree on actions and instruments
to increase the willingness of countries and regions to take on the role as “early adopters”
for eSafety systems. Lastly, the stakeholders should continue R&D efforts to develop
new solutions for infrastructure-related safety systems as well as to evaluate the effects of
such systems on safety and other socio-economic factors.
28

Regarding eCall and RTTI, the stakeholders should follow the recommendations of the
eCall Driving Group and the RTTI Working Group.
Concerning dynamic traffic management and local danger warnings, the Implementation
Road Map WG recommends that the road authorities and operators develop together a
European vision and strategy for the deployment and operation of dynamic traffic
management and local danger warning systems in co-operation with vehicle and
telecommunications industry.
Concerning speed alert, the European Commission and the other stakeholders should
solve the currently open issues and utilise the implementation roadmap produced by the
SpeedAlert project.
Prof. Kulmala informed that a renewed Working Group with active membership would
continuously update the 2005 Final Report. In order to do so, the members will add
security as an additional implementation issue to road maps, monitor priority system
deployment in the 25 Member States and create illustrative road maps for decision
makers.
Prof. Kulmala concluded by presenting a proposal of a simplified Road Map.
Heavy-Duty Vehicles Working Group Recommendations
Mr. Francisco Ferreira (EC, DG INFSO), presented the objectives, approach, work
and results attained of the Heavy-Duty Vehicles Working Group.
According to him, the general objective of the Working Group was to investigate how
road safety could be improved in the specific context of heavy-duty vehicles. Its main
tasks had consisted in:
- developing a comprehensive view of road safety of heavy-duty vehicles,
- producing a summary of significant accident types,
- evaluating around fifty safety measures,
- analysing the introduction obstacles such as cost, regulations, …etc and
- defining recommendations.
Mr. Ferreira outlined the main recommendations of the Working Group. According to
him, the differences between passenger cars, vans and heavy-duty vehicles give need for
special treatment to ensure further increase of vehicle safety of heavy-duty vehicles. He
added that due to the high mass of heavy-duty vehicles, the avoidance of accidents
(primary safety, active safety) should have a higher priority than the reduction of accident
consequences (secondary safety, passive safety). The combination of both measures
would have the highest impact in reducing fatalities.
Mr. Ferreira indicated that the broad market penetration of available or ready to market
vehicle safety systems was hindered by a missing business case. The Working Group
underlined that the current regulations for masses and dimensions also hindered, if the
load length should be kept, the introduction of an advanced passive safety system.
The Member States should therefore:
29

- promote the market penetration of safety systems by granting incentives and
- agree to a harmonised approach for additional length and weight for a passive
safety system.
Mr. Ferreira concluded by urging the EC to :
- actively promote the introduction of incentives for safety systems in heavy-duty
vehicles,
- clarify if legislation in mass and dimensions will be adopted for the time frame
2008 to 2012 to support an advanced passive safety system,
- investigate the socio-economic impact of high rated safety systems for heavyduty
vehicles and
- promote further investigations on heavy-duty vehicles accidentology in order to
achieve comparable data bases.
Accident Causation Analysis Working Group Recommendations and the Trace
Project
Mr. José Manuel Barrios, on behalf of the TRACE Project, introduced the objectives
and tasks of the TRACE Project, its background and the main research challenges that it
faces.
After recalling what “integrated safety” and “safety” meant, Mr. Barrios indicated that
the European Commission, in support of the eSafety initiative, and as a prerequisite for
diagnosis and evaluation of the most promising active safety technologies, had asked for:
- research in consistent accident causation analysis to gain a detailed knowledge
about the real backgrounds of European traffic accidents using existing data
sources and
- research to assess the potential impact and socio-economic cost/benefit, up to
2020, of stand-alone and co-operative intelligent vehicle safety systems in
Europe.
This led to the creation of the TRACE Project (Traffic Causation in Europe) Project.
Mr. Barrios indicated that the objectives of this project were:
- The identification and the assessment (in terms of saved lives and avoided
accidents), among possible technology-based safety functions, of the most
promising solutions that can assist the driver or any other road users in a normal
road situation or in an emergency situation or, as a last resort, mitigate the
violence of crashes and protect the vehicle occupants, the pedestrians, and the
two-wheelers in case of a crash or a rollover.
- The determination and the continuous up-dating of the aetiology, i.e. causes, of
road accidents (as well as the causes of injuries) and the assessment of whether
the existing technologies or the technologies under current development address
the real needs of the road users inferred from the accident and driver behaviour
analyses.
Mr. Barrios outlined the expected outcomes of TRACE related to driver failures.
Problems of perception are expected to be the first driver failure, followed by problems
of diagnosis, prognosis, decision and action. As far as risk factors are concerned, “bad
30

eaction” is expected to be the main factor (17%), followed by “inattention” (14%), “risk
taking” (14%), …etc.
He presented an example of description of accident mechanism and mentioned the
expected outcomes of the evaluation of ESP and Brake Assist.
TRACE partners are expected to use statistical methods for accidents causation issues,
risk analysis and evaluation of the safety benefits and methods to evaluate the human
factors in the accident process.
Mr. Barrios concluded by pointing out the main research challenges issues the partners
would have to face, namely:
- produce a diagnosis of traffic safety problems at the European level with three
research angles (road users, types of situations and risk factors),
- develop three kinds of analysis: descriptive statistics, in-depth analysis and risk
analysis,
- evaluate the most promising technologies: ex ante and ex post,
- improve methodology in human factors analysis and statistical analysis,
- rely on a set of various accident and exposure databases.
Human Machine Interaction Working Group and Commission
Recommendations
Mr. Alan Stevens (TRL) reported on the Human Machine Interaction Working
Group Recommendations.
After having presented the HMI Working Group, Mr. Stevens introduced its final
Recommendations. The Working Group made on the one hand specific
recommendations on the revision of the European Statement of Principles (ESoP), and
on the other hand recommendations for actions on focus areas and for defined
stakeholders.
Mr. Stevens reported on the limitations of the ESoP underlined by the HMI Working
Group, namely:
- The ESoP uses a relatively “high level” approach (weakness and strength).
- The principles are uneven in terms of depth.
- The ESoP only suggests a few specific measurable criteria
- As far as the scope is concerned,
o the ESoP addresses issues related to vehicles of class M and N including
passenger cars, trucks and buses but not motorcycles or other vehicles,
o the ESoP addresses issues related to information and communication
systems and not specifically to driver assistance systems,
o head-up displays, night vision systems and voice controlled devices are
not included.
- Integration of functions and systems may necessitate revision.
In conclusion, in general, the ESoP provided useful design advice but was not
comprehensive and not sufficient for safety impact assessment.
31

Mr. Stevens outlined the implementation issues pointed out by the HMI Working
Group. Concerning industry, the HMI Working Group recommends that ACEA endorse
the 2005 ESoP and ensures that it is distributed and acknowledged within their industry.
It also notes that there is no industry body for nomadic products and services. The
Nomadic Devices Forum deserves strong support.
Mr. Stevens presented issues for the Nomadic Devices Forum, namely:
- agreement over definitions and safety issues,
- clarification of legal aspects (responsibility and liability) associated with nomadic
devices integration,
- agreement on an ESoP implementation plan for the entire industry, e.g. by selfcommitments,
MoUs and device certification,
- arrangements for provision of a fitting kit in accordance with the ESoP,
- design of devices and functions intended for use while driving, in accordance
with the ESoP,
- provision of clear safety instructions to drivers, in accordance with the ESoP and
- co-operation between nomadic device and vehicle manufacturers leading to smart
interfaces.
Concerning the Member States, the Working Group made recommendations about their
role in communications. It recommends that they:
- actively ensure that the ESoP is effectively disseminated, known and used by
designers, manufacturers, installers, and fleet managers,
- provide general information to drivers on safe use of in-vehicle information and
communication systems e.g. media safety campaigns,
- promote self-commitment of the ESoP for after-market systems and nomadic
devices providers and support provision of consumer information concerning
safety and usability,
- report back on the impact of the ESoP.
The HMI Working Group also made recommendations about the role of the Member
States in monitoring and enforcement. It recommends that they:
- ensure regularly updated information on the definition and dynamics of the
market for after-market and nomadic,
- monitor and evaluate the impact of the ESoP,
- monitor and evaluate the safety impact of in-vehicle information and
communication systems e.g. by accident analysis (especially after-market and
nomadic),
- take measures to ensure secure fixing of after-market and nomadic devices
according to the principles of ECE R21 or equivalent,
- continue to actively enforce existing health and safety legislation concerning atwork
driving practices,
- take measures to ensure that use of nomadic devices by the driver while driving
does not compromise road safety,
- identify and take necessary actions on the unintended use or misuse of visual
entertainment systems by the driver while driving (e.g. movies, TV, video games).
Concerning the European Commission, the Working Group recommends that it:
- supports the Nomadic Devices Forum,
- works with the Member States to assist implementation, where appropriate,
32

- regarding the outreach activities through fleet operators and the vehicle rental
and sales markets:
o clarifies the extent to which existing health and safety directives include
drivers who drive as part of their work and include in-vehicle ergonomic
safety,
o leads Europe-wide information dissemination to fleet managers and
employees,
- regarding research and international aspects:
o produces evidential basis for safety impacts of IVIS and ADAS,
o produces quantitative measures of driver behaviour,
o ensures that standardisation, co-ordination activities and international
activities relevant to ESoP are engaged with (FP7 or other joint activities),
o includes JAMA, AAM, IHRA-ITS and UN-ECE as relevant groups.
Mr. Stevens concluded by presenting the next steps of the work concerning HMI,
namely:
- making implementation happen,
- exploiting and developing research, e.g. AIDE, Humanist NoE, Response,
- solving the HMI issues for ADAS: development of ESoP for assistance systems.
Discussion
Roland Gillebeert (CLEPA) stated that representatives from CLEPA should be heard.
Valérie Moutal (European Commission) answered that the European Commission
was looking for the agreement and commitment of ACEA and also CLEPA. It will be
part of the dissemination work of this new recommendation on the statement of
principles to look forward this new agreement from other stakeholders than traditional
ones like car industry, suppliers industry and nomadic devices.
Real-Time Traffic and Travel Information Working Group Recommendations
Dr. Heinz Friedrichs (Bosch) presented the Recommendations of the Real-Time
Traffic and Travel Information Working Group.
Dr. Friedrichs started by recalling the Commission Recommendation on TTI (2001) and
the objectives of the RTTI Working Group, that was established in 2003.
He went on outlining the Recommendations of the final report (October 2005). The
Member States should:
- agree on an implementation strategy for the extension of RTTI services, working
to European standards, covering both inter-urban and urban areas,
- support the TMC-Forum to promote the safety-related features of the Traffic
Message Channel,
- take steps to ensure roaming and inter-operability of RTTI services across the
EU,
- make existing public data available for the provision of RTTI services and safety
relevant data be freely available,
33

- request that traffic management centres operate to European standards such as
TMC-encoding of the data,
- agree, on the basis of national RTTI strategies and the Commission’s
Recommendation on TTI services, with the private service providers on the
minimum quality for public (free of extra charge) services,
- publish clear guidelines for the private sector on the conditions for establishing
private data collection networks for commercial services,
- require reluctant FM-broadcasters to carry an RDS/TMC service for public or
private users so that 80% or more of all journey drivers can have access to a
relevant RTTI service by the year 2010 or earlier,
- require the authorities to ensure that frequency spectrum and broadcast capacity
will be made available in the near future for advanced digital broadcast traffic
information services via DAB, DRM, DVB-T, and eventually, satellite-DAB,
- support the development of future advanced services which become possible by
DAB, DVB-T, satellite broadcasting, 3G, WLAN, and others and
- take a position regarding the RTTI WG Recommendations through their
Transport Ministers.
The Council of the Transport Ministers of the European Union should make a decision
on this subject at one of their next meetings.
Dr. Friedrichs indicated that the results of the RTTI Working Group had been presented
to the 2 nd High Level Meeting with the Member States on 18 th October 2005, but that no
main conclusions on further actions had been made. He explained that the eSafety
Steering Group had decided on 4th April 2006 to continue the work of the RTTI
Working Group with updated Terms of Reference, schedule, and participation.
According to the new Terms of Reference, the RTTI Working Group should:
1. Review the results and recommendations of the Final Report and analyse the
open issues.
2. Focus on road traffic related criteria, expectations and needs.
3. Propose a “Road Map” for the implementation of RTTI.
4. Propose further actions to the EuropeanCommission.
Dr. Friedrichs mentioned that the participation of all stakeholders such as highway and
road traffic authorities, broadcasting corporations, automotive and equipment industry,
service providers, and experts on RTTI was needed.
He concluded by giving the time schedule of the RTTI Working Group. In May 2006,
the Terms of Reference will be refined, a call for participation will be made and the
Working Group will be constituted. It will meet four times a year. In May 2007, it will
produce a preliminary Final Report. The Working Group will hand in its Final Report in
Autumn 2007.
Discussion
Ms. Valérie Moutal (European Commission) stated that a way on how to promote
RTTI should be found. She considers that the first problem to solve is how to deal with
data collection (publicly, privately or in a mixed situation).
34

Mr. Frazer Goodwin (ETSC - European Transport Safety Council) stated that
RTTI had a lot to do with traffic management but very little to do with safety.
Mr. Bangsgaard (eSafety Support) answered that some Member States, like Finland,
had made an extra effort on improving data collection and broadcasting after major road
accidents where this data was missing. RTTI could have saved lives if people had been
aware of accidents ahead of them on the highway.
Mr. David Jeffery (University of Southampton) noted that the RTTI
Recommendations were just recommendations for the Member States. The first thing
that the Working Group must understand is what is happening in the market place and
what are the barriers to implementation.
Ms. Moutal answered Mr. Goodwin that RTTI was existing already in some countries
and stressed the need to develop it more because it had been proven in several countries
that RTTI had a real impact on safety: on the stress of the driver or when informing
about a queue. She concluded that there was no doubt about the importance of RTTI in
the road safety process.
Mr. James Rosenstein (Ygomi) stated that cars were a tremendous potential source of
information thanks to all the sensors that already existed. The problem to solve is how to
best collect that data and transmit it to other vehicles that need to use it.
Digital Maps Working Group Recommendations
Before giving an overview of the background, the organisation and the objectives of the
Digital Maps Working Group, Mr. Ad Bastiaansen (TeleAtlas) stated that it was
almost impossible to implement eSafety applications without digital maps.
He presented the main challenges that the Working Group had to face, namely:
- a uniform European eSafety Map,
- high investments required,
- optimise data collection and processes,
- optimise data flow from public to private sector and
- find a combined solution.
Mr. Bastiaansen outlined the 3 phases proposed by the Digital Maps Working Group,
namely:
- Phase 1: focuses on cooperation (supply of eSafety attributes)
- Phase 2: deals with quality assurance (quality guidelines and improvement
procedures)
- Phase 3: takes care of optimalisation (standardisation).
Rob van Essen (TeleAtlas) stated that Phase 1 supported cooperation between public
and private in the provision of the safety attributes and their updates from the public
authorities to the public. He presented a few questions and constraints arising during
phase 1, namely:
- Are these attributes available with the public authorities and what are the obstacles
in finding them?
35

- The availability of the safety attributes varies at the public level among the
different public authorities.
- Can we ask the public authorities to register the safety attributes?
It was agreed by the Working Group that:
- the safety attributes agreed in “Maps & ADAS” form the basis of safety
attributes of this WG,
- the output be provided to the EC as reference document and
- synergies be created with the other related EU funded projects like EuroRoads,
SpeedAlert, Highway and INSPIRE.
Mr. van Essen stated that the stakeholders should go into the direction of a kind of
standardised information transfer.
He commented that the expected benefits of eSafety applications are benefits for traffic
safety, social and economical benefits and benefits for public authorities. Concerning the
benefits for traffic safety, Mr. van Essen explained that the safety applications could
interpret the driving environment by sensor(s) (e.g. radar, vision, map). Maps could serve
as primary sensors or as secondary sensors.
Mr. van Essen thinks that safety applications will start with advisory systems (alerts
prompting the driver to act) and will go to hybrid systems. Whether it will go to control
systems (actively controlling the vehicle) is very doubtful.
A few examples were given of the use of maps as primary sensors, such as speed limit
assistance, curve warning, predictive powertrain control, intersection assistance, curve
control and hotspot warning and a few examples of the use of maps as secondary
sensors, such as collision avoidance, stop&go, lane change assistant, lane keeping
assistant, adaptive cruise control and advanced front lighting.
Mr. van Essen stated that eSafety maps would be base on existing navigation maps, with
extra safety attributes, namely:
- Legal Speed Limits,
- Traffic Signs (Hazard, Right-of-Way),
- Lane Information (Number, Width, Divider, Connectivity),
- Traffic Lights,
- Crossings (Pedestrian, Tram),
- Hot Spot (accident statistics),
- Slope (Longitudinal road gradient) and
- Banking (Transversal road gradient).
Extra quality requirements should be added, like:
- Enhanced geometric accuracy,
- Reduction of Map Errors and
- Reduction of Time-to-Market (Up-to-datedness).
Mr. Liévin Quoidbach (NAVTEQ) insisted on the importance of achieving concrete
results.
36

He stressed that we had to collect information and underlined that if we did not go to a
real implementation with recommendations of the European Commission requiring the
local governments to do something, we would not progress. However, in some regions, it
is working very well. The personal contact that with local authorities matters.
Mr. Quoidbach told the European Commission that it had been a mistake to reject the
ROSATTE (ROad Safety ATTributes exchange infrastructure in Europe) program that
would have addressed maintenance, exchange and integration of all safety relevant
attributes.
He set up three next steps, namely:
- The European Commission should provide recommendations to the local authorities.
- Map providers and public authorities should create a framework.
-The ROSATTE proposal should be introduced again and better explained.
2.1.4.4 Keynote Speech: Europe’s challenges in Mobility and Sustainability
(Mr. Ari Vatanen, MEP)
Mr. Vatanen started by highlighting that when a high number of people agreed with
something, this could become a fact. He stated that in the political domain, you could say
things that were detached from reality and even be rewarded for that, that is to say reelected.
He stressed that we should run politics as big companies.
Mr. Vatanen regretted that when it came to transport, the same could be observed.
People do not know facts.
For him logistics and mobility were among the key questions on which our future
prosperity was based on.
He recalled that Nokia experienced a big slump a couple of years ago and had to react
immediately. He noted that they were now leading again. Europe is facing the same
challenges. Europeans are going to survive in the future only producing products with a
very high added value. We have to invest in education, research and science.
Mr. Vatanen indicated that the logistical cost was 20% higher in the European Union
than in the USA. He said that we had to look out how we could reduce the cost of
logistics. It does not matter how people and goods go from one place to another as long
as it happens in a cost-efficient manner.
Mr. Vatanen stated that we should liberalise air transport so that people could fly cheaply
from one place to another. He insisted that we could not have ideologically guided
policies. We must apply to politics the same economic laws which govern our economic
activities.
Mr. Vatanen noted that one of the reasons why Nokia had remained competitive was
that they had reduced the cost of logistics by over 90% over the last 10-15 years.
He concluded by insisting that we must run transport policy in a way that responded to
the challenges required to reach the objectives of the Lisbon agenda.
37

2.1.4.5 Update of the status of the eCall Memorandum of Understanding
Mr. Juhani Jääskeläinen, (EC, DG INFSO) reported on the update of the eCall
Memorandum of Understanding (MoU).
After having recalled what was the eCall MoU, Mr. Jääskeläinen gave an overview of
the status of 112, E112 and eCall. 112 is available in all Member States but call
answering and handling is operational in only 15 Member States. Other 10 Member
States have deficiencies in language or organisation. E112 is available in 14 Member
States. Other 11 Member States have deficiencies. Seven Member States have signed
the MoU: Finland, Sweden, Slovenia, Lithuania, Cyprus, Italy, Greece (plus
Switzerland) and the process of signing is coming to close in 5 Member States: The
Czech Republic, Cyprus, Denmark, The Netherlands and Germany. Seven Member
States are already candidates for pilot tests.
Mr. Jääskeläinen presented the Commission actions supporting 112 and E112, namely
the Conference on 112 (11 October 2005), where it was decided that a sub-group
dealing with public safety and emergency communication under the Communication
and Civil Protection Committees would be established; the Expert Group on
Emergency Communications; the infringement procedures and the 2006 review of the
Universal Directive.
The Commission actions supporting eCall include the organisation of Expert
Meetings, the support to standardisation in ETSI/CEN and the publication of the 2 nd
eSafety Communication, Bringing eCall to Citizens (September 2005).
In order to avoid a delay in the roll-out of eCall, the 2 nd eSafety Communication
recommends the Member States to sign the eCall MoU, promote 112 and E112,
upgrade their PSAPs and provide adequate location-enhanced emergency services and
language support. Mr Jääskeläinen added that the Member States had supported
unanimously the realisation of eCall during the High Level Meeting on 18 October
2005.
Mr. Jääskeläinen presented the actions being taken or planned to enable the eCall
deployment. The report of Mr. Gary Titley on eCall was adopted with a large majority
in the European Parliament on 27 April 2006. It recognises the great socio-economic
benefits of eCall, supports the Commission’s actions in promoting 112, E112 and
eCall, invites the Commission to look into the use of incentives and invites the
Commission especially to continue the efforts for getting the Member States
committed, starting from the MoU.
Mr. Jääskeläinen pointed out the fact that media attention (TV spots, prime time:
Euronews, BBC, DW, ZDF, …etc) showed the interest to eCall.
He also announced that the Commission would keep the pressure on the Member
States however it needs:
- recommendations from the eCall Driving Group, with finalised specifications
for eCall,
- support and commitment from all the players and
38

- finalisation of the standardisation work.
Mr. Jääskeläinen concluded by informing the Forum that a few workshops on
incentives would take place, such as:
- the User Outreach Actions (i2010),
- the i2010 High Level Meeting (Helsinki, 27-28 September 2006) with
Presidency Conclusions on eCall,
- the eCall Implementation Status Report, which would be discussed at the
December Transport, Telecommunications and Energy Council under the
Finnish Presidency and
- the Council Conclusions on the next steps and actions at the February 2007
TTE Council under the German Presidency.
2.1.4.6 Statement by Norway (Mr. John Arild Jenssen, Ministry of Transport
and Communications of Norway)
Mr. John Arild Jenssen (Ministry of Transport and Communications of Norway)
started by stating that Norway supports eSafety in general and eCall in particular. eCall is
an important system that should be introduced. Norway is among the best performing
countries in Europe concerning road safety and its health level is approximately the same
as the one of Sweden, the United Kingdom and the Netherlands. In such a context, it is
important for Norway to try to move further on and be even better.
Mr. Jenssen added that Norway has a vision zero, which considers that there shall be no
fatalities and seriously injured. Within this framework, the eSafety initiative has a lot of
measures which can contribute moving forward. Since eCall is a matter of life and death,
it is very important to Norway.
His second point addressed the eCall deployment process in Norway. Norway joined the
eSafety Forum late and therefore has had a relatively short time to catch up. In order to
look into the eCall MoU, an inter-ministerial group with representatives from the
Ministry of Justice and Police, the Ministry of Health and Social Science, public roads
administrations and the National Centre on Emergency Communication and Health was
established. Its objective was to see what kind of position should be taken in relation to
eCall.
Mr. Jenssen indicated that this group experienced a few problems. He argued that similar
problems would be found in the other areas. eCall is a complex concept and it is
therefore difficult to communicate. It is full of acronyms, abbreviations and names,
which is difficult to understand to most people. It will take time for the participants to
understand what eCall is about.
The group also had to start on a top-down approach instead of a bottom-up approach,
which meant that its members were pressing this message onto the agencies and to other
possible stakeholders. Mr. Jenssen commented that this was not the best way of doing
that but that the group had to do it in light of the time schedule and the time available up
until 2009.
Another issue experienced was the difficulty to define the responsible ministry. When
several ministries are involved, people try to get rid of costs by saying that they will not
39

take responsibility. Mr. Jenssen highlighted the difficulty to find a national coordinator
able to communicate properly to all the stakeholders how to handle this type of systems
and discuss it with them.
Mr. Jenssen concluded by solemnly declaring that Norway would sign the MoU.
2.1.4.7 The eSafety Forum: Plenary Conclusions on ongoing activities (Day
2)
eCall Driving Group
Mr. Michael Nielsen, co-chair of the DG eCall, reported on the Recommendations
for the introduction of the pan-European eCall.
Mr. Nielsen started by recalling the objectives of the DG eCall, namely:
- create a Pan-European solution available to all vehicle users,
- define the minimum of information (MSD) needed for emergency agencies to
improve the deployment of emergency assistance,
- define an agreed European interface for the voice (audio) and for sending the
Minimum Set of Data (MSD) from vehicle to emergency call centre and
- define performance criteria in the eCall service chain.
He presented the different parts of the DG eCall Recommendations: Architecture,
Performance criteria, Minimum Set of Data – MSD, Transport Protocol, Deployment
Plan and Final Recommendations.
According to the deployment plan drafted, agreed on and adopted by the DG eCall
Members, the full specification of the eCall system should be ready by mid-2007. At that
date, eCall should start being developed. Full-scale field tests are expected to be
performed from the beginning of 2008. All key Member States should be ready with the
upgrade of their PSAPs in September 2009. Lastly, eCall as standard option in all vehicles
type-approved is scheduled to be introduced on 1 st September 2010.
Mr. Nielsen concluded by outlining the Final Recommendations. The DG eCall
recommends that:
- Member States take all necessary decisions and actions for deploying eCall
including signing the eCall MoU,
- the European Commission continue its effort to pursue the deployment of eCall
through all available mechanisms including closely following the ongoing
standardisation work on the transport protocol and encouraging ETSI to provide
a standard as early as possible,
- eSafety Support continue providing the necessary support on helping Member
States and other stakeholder groups in the decision process and the deploymentenabling
phase for eCall,
- vehicle makers, telecom industry and equipment manufacturers and other related
industries prepare for the deployment according to the road map given in the
Final Report,
- large scale field operational tests and assessments of eCall be established as soon
as possible to provide additional data for the costs and benefits of eCall to be
40

used e.g. for deciding potential incentive schemes that could speed up the
deployment,
- a permanent group of emergency authorities and other relevant stakeholders be
established to review each year (at least until 2015) the deployment status
amongst the various stakeholders,
- the private service providers currently operating a proprietary vehicle emergency
call alike systems be consulted for providing experiences when Member States
discuss how to deploy eCall and
- the European Commission, the Member States and other stakeholders carry out
adequate awareness and education campaign to the citizens on eCall.
Discussion
Mr. Daniel Augello (Renault) commented not to have any business model based on
various kinds of incentives. He added that the Member States which were big automotive
markets, that is to say Germany, France, the UK and Spain were still missing in the list of
the MoU signatures.
As long as the automotive industry does not have a clear vision of the future action plan
of the Member States that have not signed the MoU, it will not invest in hardware. Mr.
Augello concluded by stating that the plan for the introduction of eCall as standard
equipment was unrealistic.
Mr. Nielsen suggested that the Forum urged more concretely some of the larger
Member States to sign the MoU. Concerning the business model, he considers the
European Parliament call for incentives as a step in the right direction.
Mr. Jean-Marie Swaelus (Ministry of Transport, Belgium), asked for the price of the
installation of such a device in a vehicle, especially in two-wheel vehicles.
Mr. Nielsen answered that there was a target figure of 100-150 euros, which concerned
the purchase of the hardware. The general price depends on the business case.
Concerning the installation of eCall in two-wheel vehicles, Mr. Nielsen stated that it was
something that would be interesting to look at, but only after the first issue which
concerns about 15 million vehicles that are put on the market every year in Europe.
There might be other considerations to make because of the specificity of two wheel
vehicle accidents.
Mr. André Vits (European Commission) commented that the time frame for the
pilots supposed that the equipment was available. He asked whether some kind of testing
simulation existed, that could enable Member States to start to build up experience at
national or regional level, before final equipment was available.
Mr. Nielsen recalled the existence of eCall alike systems that had already collected a lot
of experience. Data has been received from the system owners. He stated that a study
was going on, that addressed issues like the number of calls that can be expected,etc.
Mr. Augello stressed the importance of knowing in advance what kind of information
the Member States were expecting from those tests.
41

Ms. Laurell Anu (Ministry of Transport and Communications, Finland)
commented that the benefit for two wheelers would be extremely high, for example
because two wheelers were sometimes unconscious after an accident.
User Outreach Working Group
Mr. Johann Grill (FIA) presented the ongoing activities of the User Outreach
Working Group
Mr. Grill started by recalling that ABS had needed more than 20 years to be implemented
in all new cars and that, according to EuroTest, only 20% of the drivers knew what ABS
was and how it worked. He argued that this situation should be avoided: that is slow
deployment of new technologies and ignorance by the consumer on how to use them.
Mr. Grill also recalled the objectives of the User Outreach Working Group, which were:
- to investigate methodologies of how to improve the take up of eSafety systems
amongst the general public,
- to study good practices to make users aware of such technologies and systems,
and their benefits,
- to define the influencing factors for the acceptance of eSafety systems by the
user,
- to liaise with the other eSafety Working Groups and specify their specific
requirements in respect of user awareness and
- to develop recommendations for the increase of user awareness for eSafety
systems, and propose actions for the stakeholders.
According to the Communication Model established by the User Outreach Working
Group, one must first be aware of who is communicating. The organisation
communicating must have expertness and trustworthiness. In order to reach the
consumer, the information must be given in a way that the consumer understands it. The
right channel must be chosen. Mr. Grill insisted on the importance of the awareness of
the target group and the searched effect (raise attention, create interest, create desire or
convince persons to buy).
Mr. Grill outlined the results of a survey on the trustworthiness of German
organisations. The organization that reached the highest trustworthiness was the German
automobile club ADAC. Thus users organisations would be ideal to communicate eSafety
issues. To communicate subjects in a more structured way throughout all the different
magazines would be an asset for a future communication concept.
Mr. Grill stressed that the message had to be simple. It must not be too technical but it
has to be consistent.
The instruments recommended by the User Outreach Working group are:
- constant media work,
- consumer tests,
- a label and
- materials to approach the points of sales or novice drivers and driving schools.
42

The main target group is the general public but an approach where the point of sales is
integrated is required. Other specific target groups should be fleet operators, novice
drivers and driving schools.
Mr. Grill pointed out that, in order to implement such a broad approach, it was necessary
that all stakeholders be involved. A Communication Platform will be set up, including
media work, a marketing orientated approach and room for political work. Indeed, tax
incentives and relations to insurance would support communication dramatically. Mr.
Grill mentioned the possibility of creating a label.
He presented what he considered as the key elements of the Communication Platform,
namely:
- a wide participation of stakeholders (manufacturers, users, suppliers, media,
Member States, European Commission),
- a non-competitive character,
- an internal agreement on how to finance projects,
- a definition of campaign subjects,
- the development of media protocols, test protocols and media material and
- a cooperation with agencies.
The membership should contain categories, such as:
- full member with full financial contribution, full voting right
- supporting, reduced contribution and voting right
- goodwill member
Car Manufacturers, System Suppliers, Car dealers, Automobile Clubs, Driving Schools,
Insurances, Road Safety Institutes, NGOs, European Institutions and Member States are
possible candidates to participate in the Communication Platform.
Mr. Grill commented that the way to set up such a Communication Platform was to
realise a pilot campaign. The Working Group came to the conclusion that the pilot
campaign should focus on a system which is already on the market. In this case it should
be ESP (Electronic Stability Program).
Mr. Grill outlined the next steps for the public awareness activity, namely:
- come up with a report with recommendations,
- evaluate results of the Eurobarometer studies,
- set up the Communication Platform to approach members, resources and
finances and try to find an organisation which will play as the champion.
Mr. Grill thinks that it makes sense that the Terms of Reference be expanded for the
Working Group to bring more knowledge and figures into the report, which would mean
that the work would have to go on until the second half of 2006.
Mr. Grill concluded by reporting on the Intelligent Car Initiative good support to the
awareness activities.
Discussion
43

Ivan Hodac (ACEA) emphasised the importance of making sure that the consumer
understands the functionalities of the technologies.
Juhani Jääskeläinen (European Commission) insisted on the importance of finding a
leading organisation.
David Ward (FIA Foundation) stressed the lack of incentives. He argued that it was
unreasonable to expect car manufacturers to provide technology for nothing. A clear
social benefit can be expected from safety systems. He pointed out that sellers lacked
some basic understanding of active safety systems. He stated that EuroNCAP should be
involved in the Communication Platform.
Johann Grill answered that this communication line was established because it would be
senseless to redo things that have already been done by EuroNCAP.
Ivan Hodac stressed the importance of the cost of ESP and noted that it was useless to
develop safety systems if it was prohibited to use them, referring to the prohibition of
the use of cruise control on the highway between Brussels and Antwerp.
Frazer Goodwin (ETSC - European Transport Safety Council), who is also
coordinator of the Voice network, observed that consumers organisations involved in
the Voice network would be very much interested in participating in the Communication
Platform.
James Rosenstein (Ygomi) recalled that safety had become one of the leading
purchase factors whereas some years ago it was at the bottom. This is partly due to the
efforts made by organisations such as EuroNCAP, but also because car manufacturers
have been advertising their safety features very strongly.
André Vits (European Commission) commented that the Intelligent Car Initiative was
announced by Commissioner Reding to inform the citizen about the potential of active
safety. He is convinced that if the Commissioner gets a proposal, she will support it.
eSafety Support
Dr. Alessandro Carrotta (eSafety Support) presented the activities of eSafety
Support.
He started by introducing the objectives of eSafety Support. The first objective that he
outlined was to support safety, that is to say stimulate and monitor the activities, progress
and results generated by the eSafety initiative through support to the eSafety Forum and
its Working Groups. He stated that this objective consisted in:
1. The “eSafety Support Function”: monitor the eSafety initiatives and stimulate
activities
2. Supporting the development of the Implementation Road Map
3. Supporting the User Outreach effort
4. Supporting the implementation process for eCall
5. Disseminate eSafety activities
The second objective that he presented was supporting the stakeholders through the
eSafety Compendium, the eSafety Support Secretariat and the eSafety Support Website.
44

Dr. Carrotta introduced a third objective of eSafety Support, namely supporting
dissemination through the eSafety Support Website and production of dissemination
material such as newsletters, brochures, press releases and gadgets.
He outlined a fourth objective, namely supporting meeting organisation (Steering Group
Meetings, Forum Plenary Meetings, High Level Meetings, Working Group support,
Regional Stakeholders Meetings and Observers Meetings).
Dr. Carrotta explained that supporting eCall consisted in:
- delivering the eCall tool box,
- setting up a help desk – FAQ,
- providing support material and
- organising eCall expert meetings.
He concluded by presenting the activities for the next period, namely:
- establish the Communication Platform,
- conduct dissemination actions: website, newsletters,
- take part in workshops and conferences,
- monitor recommendations and Working Groups,
- finalise the setting up of the Observers group and regional meetings,
- conduct specific actions on eCall,
- provide specific support to Road Maps,
- create the new eSafety Brochure,
- establish contact to the professional press,
- promote results and
- establish contact to national activities.
2.1.4.8 The eSafety Forum: Plenary Conclusions on new activities - Part 1
ICT for Clean Mobility – A new Working Group
Dr. Arnold van Zyl (ERTICO) introduced a new Working Group: ICT for Clean
Mobility.
This Working Group will be co-chaired by ACEA and ERTICO. It should investigate
the potential contributions of information and communication technologies for the
reduction of CO2 and other emissions in a combined effort of industry, users, public
authorities and infrastructure operators.
Dr. van Zyl outlined the Working Group’s different areas of activity.
The activities covered will include:
- ICT to support the quality and efficiency of infrastructure,
- develop educational tools for encouraging Eco-Driving,
- provide input on traffic conditions topography and air quality to vehicle power
train, energy management and emission control systems and
- produce cost benefit analyses of applying ICT based solutions and education for
environmental benefits.
45

Dr. van Zyl concluded by announcing the next steps towards the creation of the ICT for
Clean Mobility WG. The Working Group will finalise the Terms of Reference and the
WG membership. The Steering Group will endorse the creation of this new Working
Group on 4 July 2006.
Discussion
Dr. Csaba Csapodi (Permanent Representation of Hungary to the EU) stressed the
importance of clean transport. He stated though that some relevance to the eSafety issue
should be put under this umbrella.
Mr. Daniel Augello (Renault) commented that efficiency of the infrastructure as part
of safety, because relaxed driving is part of safety. He insisted that this group should not
be the opportunity to discuss again what was discussed in other Working Groups.
Dr. van Zyl commented that part of moving forward in eSafety was to look at other
opportunities for applying this technology and addressing other challenges of the
mobility system. There is no necessity to have a safety label on each activity.
Mr. Ivan Hodac (ACEA) agreed and insisted on the fact that there should not be
overlapping.
Mr. André Vits (European Commission) stated that this WG was also an opportunity
to look at an early stage on what these projects were going to do in the following years
where new applications would be developed.
Mr. Rui Camolino (ASECAP) regretted that ASECAP had not been invited to join the
Working Group.
Dr. Van Zyl answered that the members of the Working Group had not been identified
yet however ASECAP would be an extremely important partner in this effort.
Mr. Thomas Haub (European Commission) commented that there could be another
area of activity. ICT can help upcoming alternative fuels to become more common. He
gave the example of navigation systems that help to find a fuelling station where there is
hydrogen.
Answering a question of Mr. Joachim Scholten (BMW Group), Dr. van Zyl stated
that there was an increasing number of hybrid vehicles. Vehicle manufacturers say that a
major challenge is energy management between the electric plant and the fuel power
plant. If they know what the average traffic speed is, it can help them with energy
management. He commented that this was a type of information that ICT could provide
to vehicle manufacturers and insisted on the fact that the Working Group would only
provide information.
Service Oriented Architectures Working Group
Mr. Michael Nielsen (ERTICO) presented another new Working Group: Service-
Oriented Architectures.
46

Mr Michael Nielsen started by outlining the motivation for the creation of this Working
Group. To deal with tomorrow’s transportation challenges, systems allowing vehicles to
communicate with other vehicles and with the infrastructure, also known as co-operative
systems, are needed. A pre-condition for the successful introduction of such co-operative
systems is that existing services can be extended and future services can easily be
introduced on the same in-vehicle and roadside infrastructure. This calls for a common
view on Service-Oriented Architectures (SOA).
A definition of SOA was given. SOAs allow to achieve loose coupling among interacting
software agents (a service is a unit of work done by a service provider to achieve desired
end results for a service consumer). They use a small set of simple and ubiquitous
interfaces to all participating software agents, using only generic semantics at the
interfaces. Descriptive messages constrained by an extensible schema are delivered
through the interfaces, not prescribing, or only minimally, system behaviour. Lastly,
SOAs have a mechanism that enables a consumer to discover a service provider under
the context of a service sought by the consumer.
Mr. Nielsen reported on the scope of SOAs. Service providers will be unable to
understand requests if messages are not written in a format, structure, and vocabulary
that is understood by all parties (vehicle manufacturers, road operators as well as other
key stakeholders in the transportation domain). Convergence on common standards for
the vocabulary and structure of messages is therefore a necessity. Messages should be
restricted while ensuring maximum scope for extensibility.
In addition services should be discoverable seamlessly without or with a minimum of
human intervention. This needs a standardised format for synchronising service
availability between end-points. Interface layers between communicating devices provide
information about available services to the peer entity. Automated services discovery
calls for an extensive use of authentication, authorisation and encryption technologies to
prevent malicious use of information and services.
Mr. Nielsen outlined the objectives of the SOA WG. The Working Group will
- review the state-of-the art on SOAs and their possible use in the transportation
domain,
- identify and assess obstacles for convergence and deployment,
- investigate the need to standardise service descriptors for ensuring automated
service discovery processes,
- investigate the security aspects related to automated service discovery,
- draft a roadmap for deployment and
- make recommendations for issues to be addressed by the 7 th Framework
Programme.
The possible stakeholders/participants for this Working Group would be representatives
of vehicle manufacturers, national authorities and road operators, telecom operators,
suppliers, universities and research institutes and other stakeholders such as parking lot
operators, gasoline distributors, …etc. It is proposed that the group be co-chaired by a
vehicle manufacturer and a road operator.
Mr. Nielsen concluded by announcing that the launch should not be before October
2006. Looking at exploitation issues is easier after dissemination and exploitation material
is available from GST; the GST Forum will also play a useful role in the Working Group.
47

Discussing the need for peer-to-peer extensions is easier in a CVIS/Safespot context
where use cases will be examined. He pointed out that rather than duplicating existing
activities, it was better to wait for their outcome and launch the WG in October, after the
London ITS World Congress.
Discussion
Ms. Valérie Moutal (European Commission) asked to what extent end services could
be linked to the RTTI WG.
Mr. Nielsen answered that Service Oriented Architecture should serve both safety and
efficiency applications. RTTI could be part of them.
Mr. Rui Camolino (ASECAP) commented that his company had currently a tolling
system based on this kind of architecture, which was working and that his company was
extending that architecture to all automatic equipment it had in the network.
Mr. Nielsen commented that there was no common approach across Europe to this
kind of service delivery.
RTD and Security Working Group
Dr. Ulf Palmquist (EUCAR) reported on the re-launch of the Research and
Technological Development Working Group.
Dr. Palmquist started by defining the RTD Working Group as the body handling the
R&D perspective and activities of the eSafety Forum domain. It should identify vertical
and horizontal R&D issues of the eSafety Forum domain, formulate R&D strategies and
agendas and review R&D actions and plans for sound system approach and consistency.
It will report to the eSafety Steering Group and Plenary.
The activities of the Working Group until 2005 were recalled. The RTD Working Group
has conducted a survey, characterising and listing eSafety R&D activities on the Regional,
National and European levels. It has also identified priorities and recommendations for
R&D projects and demonstration activities which were reported on at the 4 th eSafety
Plenary in Hannover on 2 nd June 2005.
Dr. Palmquist announced that the Working Group was currently being re-launched. He
considers that it was on a “mid-term vacation” during 2005. During the first half of 2006,
the objectives and tasks will be reviewed, as well as the role of the Working Group vs.
the eSafety Forum, the Intelligent Car Initiative and FP7. The distribution and
contribution of its members will also be reviewed.
Dr. Palmquist outlined the objectives of the RTD Working Group, namely:
- serve as the strategic and progressive R&D body of the eSafety Forum and
support its R&D activities (Intelligent Car Initiative, …etc),
- act as the catalytic meeting place between industry, road
operators/administrations, research community, EU and national representatives,
…etc and
48

- come to consensus and agree on priorities for eSafety research as well as for
demos and deployment support measures.
The tasks that the Working Group should dig into immediately are namely:
- assist in consensus building of inputs to the FP7,
- harmonise and build an over-all “picture” of the outcomes of the DG INFSO 5
consultation workshops on intelligent vehicle systems, cooperative systems,
mobility services for people, mobility services for goods and field operational
tests,
- additionally include security as a R&D topic structured as embedded into the
technical system and functions for dedicated security purposes, e.g freight and
goods,
- based on outcomes of above consultation activities, propose a research agenda
for eSafety in FP7 and Intelligent Car Initiative and conduct an open consultation
of proposed research agenda in summer 2006 and
- produce a Final Proposal on Strategic Research Agenda for eSafety incorporating
the outcome of the open consultation at the 6 th Plenary Meeting in November
2006.
Beyond these immediate tasks, there will be some baseline tasks, such as:
- support, monitor and review the implementation and outcome of the Strategic
Research Agenda,
- survey and support the activities and their synergies at national and EU level
- promote the R&D contribution to the achievement of safe and secure road
traffic and transport and
- assure global competitiveness of the EU industry.
Dr. Palmquist summarised the major topics of the RTD Working Group. They will be:
intelligent vehicle systems (on-board active safety systems and others), cooperative
systems, mobility services for people, mobility services for goods, field operational tests
and security.
He concluded by indicating that the Working Group was trying to cover a sound
distribution of Member States as well as a good sector dimension, including authorities,
road operators, two-wheeler, car and commercial vehicle manufacturers, automotive-
electronic suppliers, research providers and institutions, …etc.
Discussion
Mr. André Vits (European Commission) commented that the basic topics mentioned
here were intrinsic in the ERTRAC Technology Platform.
Mr. Thomas Haub (European Commission) commented that ERTRAC and the
European Conference of Road Directors were organising the first Transport Research
Arena in Gothenburg from 12 to 15 of June 2006 (www.traconference.com).
2.1.4.9 The eSafety Forum: Plenary Conclusions on new activities - Part 2
49

Communications Working Group
Mr. Uwe Daniel (Robert Bosch) introduced the Communications Working Group.
The Communications Working Group was established in autumn 2005. Its Terms of
Reference were confirmed by the eSafety Forum Steering Group on 20 September 2005.
The Working Group focuses on:
– standardisation,
– spectrum requirements and
– international cooperation.
Its members come from industry, the public sector and road and infrastructure
operators.
Mr. Daniel mentioned that the Communications Working Group worked in close cooperation
with COMeSafety and other EU projects (CVIS, COOPERS, GST, SafeSpot).
Two task forces address spectrum issues and standardisation while international aspects
will be covered by active participation in the International Workshop on Communication
(following the ITS World Congress, London) and contacts to VII and ASV.
Mr. Daniel explained why V2X communications were needed. Most severe accidents
occur because
– drivers misjudge the speed of oncoming traffic leading to left turn accidents (UK:
right turn),
– drivers misjudge situations at intersections or don’t yield right of way, leading to
side crashes and
– crossing traffic can only be noticed late due to buildings/obstacles.
These accidents could be avoided by vehicle to vehicle communication or infrastructurebased
systems. Co-operative traffic using V2X communication (including free to air
traffic information broadcasts) also increases road capacity and reduces the likelihood of
congestions and accidents, thereby reducing maintenance costs of road infrastructure.
Mr. Daniel pointed out that the need for V2X communications was high in the
European Union. European based electronics and car industries, telco and service
companies could take lead in a new worldwide market but European industry will have
severe disadvantages if a home market does not exist. US and Japan are already more
advanced with standards and have protected spectrum allocated.
The Communications Working Group faces different challenges, namely:
- Standardisation: all components must have an exactly defined behaviour to
guarantee safety functions
- Spectrum requirements: maximum delay times, QoS needed, free of charge
- Business case: threshold problem, dissemination
- International harmonisation.
Mr. Daniel concluded that to strengthen the European position in a worldwide
competitive market we needed:
- a common set of standards,
50

- a protected spectrum (ideally with a worldwide, exclusive slot for safety critical
applications with low bandwith) and
- a common European market with one deployment strategy to overcome the
threshold problem.
Discussion
Mr. James Rosenstein (Ygomi LLC) asked the Working Group chair how did he see
the prospect for obtaining the kind of spectrum he thought we should have.
Mr. Daniel answered that if all the available leverages were used, it would be possible to
get a kind of protected spectrum, i.e. a secondary service on the same spectrum but on a
non interfering space. He was not sure that an exclusive spectrum would be manageable
because of the different types of national policies.
Fuel Efficiency in Road Transport. Benefits of the use of ICT, driver coaching,
other methods
Mr. Anders Lindelöf (Greater Than) reported on a case study in driving technique
for all types of transports made by Greater Than since early 2004.
Mr. Lindelöf explained that Greater Than had made comparisons when coaching drivers,
giving only information to the driver or applying measurement only. The study aimed at
showing how built-in technology assists the driver in safer, more economic and
environmental friendly driving.
After having mentioned the criteria for participating companies, Mr. Lindelöf said that 12
different companies with a fleet size from 5 to 2,300 vehicles had taken part in the study.
In total, 430 drivers (422 men and 8 women), aged between 21 and 61 years old,
including 38 drivers with formal Eco-driving education, had participated.
Mr. Lindelöf outlined the conditions and parameters of the study. Interviews and
statistics were made by Greater Than S.A., non dependent managing consulting
companies and Heavy Eco Driving International. Three stages of results were analysed:
1 - Initial results
2 - Follow up results
3 - Continuous results
Mr. Lindelöf presented the conclusions of the study. By supplying information to allow
drivers to self improve, you achieve:
- Small impact on fuel consumption
- Small impact on productivity
- Small impact on emissions
- Worsened working conditions
- Reduced profitability
By applying active leadership, you achieve:
- Improved performance
- Improved working environment
- Sustainable improvements
51

- Increased productivity
- Increased profitability
The general conclusions of the study are the following:
- Drivers are ready to change and improve.
- Management lacks the skill in how to lead and coach.
- > 90% of drivers across the board are very positive.
- > 75% of drivers have “will and skill” to reach “green area” with active training.
- < 25% will reach “green area”: extended coaching, additional eco-drive training
are needed.
- Young drivers have got better education but require efficient leadership.
- Older drivers have less education but are easier to coach.
- Verbal information and information displayed in cabin have no or limited impact.
- Self improvement activity is shown not to work in this business either.
- The type of vehicle driven or other surrounding conditions have no impact on
behaviour.
- Fuel consumption is not a correct measure of driver skill.
Mr. Lindelöf outlined the conclusions of the study related to vehicle built-in technology:
- Drivers do not have proper education for the use of technology.
- Automatic gear box, cruise control etc. make drivers less concentrated.
- Displays, informative text, GPS etc. assist the driver but disturb the driving
technique.
- Hidden technology, like anti spin, ABS braking or distance keeping assistance
assist drivers.
Mr. Lindelöf summed up the conclusions, assuring that coaching and training drivers
enabled to achieve safer driving (~80% less accidents), environmental driving (~10% less
CO2 pollution) and economical driving, (~10% fuel saving and ~12% other savings).
He pointed out that a few obstacles hindered the deployment of coaching and training
drivers. The market consists of 2 categories: relatively well managed and profitable – do
not “need” the improvement – and poorly managed – do not understand nor can afford
to change. This situation can be explained by a lack of price pressure and legal directives
and poor customer requirements.
Mr. Lindelöf concluded by suggesting key success factors. Owners/management should
“buy in” to continuous improvement. Leaders should get education in coaching skills.
They should also understand the importance of a continuous improvement philosophy.
The last key success factors that Mr. Lindelöf mentioned were understanding of drivers
importance and impact on P&L, environment and safety and getting drivers to
understand above and how they can improve.
Discussion
Dr. Arnold van Zyl (ERTICO) asked how valuable the initial training was.
Mr. Lindelöf answered that it was very valuable and underlined the importance of
getting some feedback.
52

Mr. Juhani Jääskeläinen (European Commission) asked what was the benchmark on
top of which over-consumption was measured.
Mr. Lindelöf stated that there was in all conditions a perfect way of how to drive the
vehicle. It has to be measured over a long period
eSafety Forum and the i2010 Intelligent Car Initiative
Mr. Fabrizio Minarini (European Commission) presented an update of the i2010
Intelligent Car Initiative.
On June 1, 2005 the Commission adopted the initiative “i2010: European Information
Society 2010 for growth and employment”. The Intelligent Car is one of the i2010
Flagship Initiatives. The general objective is to improve the quality of the living
environment by supporting ICT solutions for safer, smarter and cleaner mobility of
people and goods.
Mr. Minarini reported on the launching of the Intelligent Car Initiative, that had gathered
more than 250 stakeholders and attracted 85 journalists and camera teams and around
400 visitors. The press coverage of the event was very broad and all articles on it were
very positive and supportive.
Mr. Minarini outlined the challenges that the i2010 Intelligent Car Initiative would have
to face. They concern transport-related problems (congestion, safety and energy
efficiency), market implementation and integration. Congestion costs amount to 50
billion €/ year and 10 % of the road network is affected daily by traffic jams.
Road transport consumes 83% of the energy consumed by the whole transport sector
and is responsible for 85% of the total CO2 transport emissions.
Over 40.000 fatalities and 1.4 million accidents in the European Union each year
represent 2% of the EU GDP. Human error is involved in almost 93% of accidents.
Market implementation takes too long. For example, it took 20 years for ABS to fully
penetrate the market and 10 years for ESP to reach 40% of the market. Most intelligent
systems are not yet on the market. The reasons are explained by legal barriers, the
competitive situation of the automotive sector, the high cost of intelligent systems, the
lack of customer demand and the lack of information. Raising awareness is therefore a
key issue. A Eurotest survey interviewing a sample of almost 2800 drivers unveiled that
only 50 % of the drivers were familiar with existing basic in-vehicle technologies
providing active and passive safety and only 50% of them knew what an ABS does. The
survey concluded that “more needs to be done, on both the European and national level,
to raise the awareness about safer, cleaner and more economical driving”.
Mr. Minarini presented the objectives of the Intelligent Car Initiative, namely:
1. Coordinate and support the work of the relevant stakeholders, citizens, Member
States and the Industry
2. Support research and development in the area of smarter, cleaner and safer
vehicles and facilitate the take-up and use of research results
3. Create awareness of ICT-based solutions to stimulate user’s demand for these
systems and create socio-economic acceptance
53

The i2010 Intelligent Car Initiative will build on the work of the eSafety initiative and
follow a three - pillar approach:
1. The eSafety initiative and the eSafety Forum
2. RTD in information and communications technologies
3. Awareness raising actions
Mr. Minarini outlined the main action lines of the first pillar, namely:
- follow up the actions proposed in the 2 nd eSafety Communication “Bringing eCall
to Citizens”,
- produce a Commission Recommendation on HMI,
- investigate the possibility to use incentive schemes supporting the purchase of
vehicles equipped with advanced safety functions and after-market installations,
- address the issues of spectrum needs,
- follow up the recommendation on the establishment of a European Code of
Practice for the development and testing of Advanced Driver Assistance Systems
and
- extend the field of competence of the Forum to cover also the “clean mobility”
aspects of the initiative.
As far as the second pillar is concerned, Mr. Minarini reported that the Intelligent Car
Initiative activities are built upon the achievements and results of the EU Framework
Programmes on research and technological development. The long-term objectives of
the Intelligent Car Initiative will be part of the ICT priority in FP7. The research
priorities of the Intelligent Car fully support the ERTRAC strategic research agenda.
The main action lines consist in:
- enhancing the performance of Active Safety Systems,
- taking a further step in the development of truly Cooperative Systems (vehiclevehicle,
vehicle-road),
- taking a step forward in info-mobility services for persons and goods and
- sharing objective data related to field operational tests between key stakeholders:
industry, operators and Member States.
Mr. Minarini noted that the Working Groups had started to work. A wide consultation
will take place from May to September. In November-December, the work program will
be adopted and the first calls will be launched.
Mr. Minarini reported that the awareness pillar of the Intelligent Car Initiative would
promote active information dissemination to a wide audience:
- to raise drivers and policy makers’ knowledge about the potential of intelligent
vehicle systems,
- to stimulate users’ demand and create socio-economic acceptance,
- to facilitate the deployment of mature technologies and systems in the initial
phase of market penetration and
- to encourage stakeholders initiatives supporting i2010.
Mr. Minarini concluded by presenting the awareness actions planned by the European
Commission. In 2006, a Eurobarometer Survey will study citizens’ knowledge of active
54

safety devices. A study will benchmark initiatives of Member States and the industry
(May) and another one will concentrate on performance testing (May).
The European Commission will participate in major conferences, such as Transport
Research Arena (Göteborg, 12-15 June), the ITS World Conference (London, 8-12
October). The i2010 High-Level Conference (Helsinki, 27-28 November) and the eSafety
Communication Platform are also part of the awareness actions on which the i2010
Intelligent Car Initiative will partly build. In 2007, an Intelligent Car Event will take place.
55

Eurobarometer survey on safety: preliminary results
Mr. Daniel Debomy (OPTEM) presented the preliminary results of a Eurobarometer
survey on safety.
Mr. Debomy started by stressing that the results were preliminary. The study is a
qualitative study which will be followed by a quantitative one. The first purpose of this
study was to help the Commission prepare the questionnaire of the quantitative study.
The second one is to produce results for their own merits. The study was carried out in 6
EU countries: the four biggest countries, Poland and Finland.
Mr. Debomy indicated that, in each country, two group discussions of car owners and 20
personal interviews had been organised with professional drivers, fleet owners, potential
decision influencers such as car salesmen and driving school instructors and a couple of
pedestrians.
The purpose of the study was to understand how the merits and benefits of the eSafety
systems could be better communicated and promoted to the public in the future.
Mr. Debomy insisted that the main conclusion of the study was that “the road will not be
as smooth as you might believe”.
He indicated that the different topics in the interviews and discussions were:
- having an introductory description of vehicle usage, attitude towards driving,
feelings when driving,
- investigating decisions factors when choosing a car model rather than another
one,
- looking into what car safety means for people,
- evaluating their knowledge of active vs. passive safety, equipment and devices
used for improving car safety,
- asking them to react to concepts of systems and asking them about potential
players who could be useful to help increase awareness, knowledge and interest in
these systems.
Mr. Debomy warned that most of what he would tell the Forum would be based on the
analysis of discussions with private car owners.
Concerning decision factors, what comes out is that the myth according to which people
do take into account safety to a large extent when they buy a new car should be killed.
Safety is very rarely a factor that will make them use a car rather than another. Key
decision factors remain design, reputation of the brand, comfort and interior equipment.
Safety is one of the minor factors. This is explained by:
- it is not very pleasant to think about safety when you buy a car,
- people who participated in the study trust other people, like public authorities, to
care for safety,
- they blame others for feeling unsafe and
- the idea that all cars have almost the same safety level is fairly widespread.
Mr. Debomy indicated that it came out of the study that people understood almost
nothing by “active” and “passive safety”.
56

Their familiarity with safety systems (ABS, ESP, adaptive headlights, speed alert, driver
condition monitoring, lane departure warning, obstacle and collision warning, local
danger warning, RTTI and eCall) is very low.
When they are explained what each system consists in, eCall generates interest and large
approval, ESP and adaptive headlights are well received and driver condition monitoring
is reasonably well received.
Lane departure warning got a fairly cold reaction. As far as obstacle and collision
warning, local danger warning and RTTI are concerned, Mr. Debomy indicated that it
was difficult to communicate to people the difference between the three systems.
He mentioned that people did not want to be bothered by a ring tone.
Mr. Debomy observed that the four last systems could raise potential interest however a
number of resistances existed, namely:
- The systems may appear as negating the driver sense of responsibility.
- They may appear as potentially counter-productive: if the driver feels protected,
he will loose attention.
- People need to be reassured about reliability of electronics in car.
- Cost-related issues
- Lack of clear understanding of how it works
- Safety is so essential that you can not offer it as an option. Mr. Debomy believes
that the last statement is a nice way of putting aside the issue
He concluded by indicating that there was a risk of these systems developing at a very
slow speed. In order to avoid that, he suggested that:
- all of these systems be switchable for people not to feel prisoners and
- some of the safety devices be sold as a package together with GPS-based systems
because safety itself does not make people use a car.
Discussion
David Horncastle (CONNEXIS) asked if respondents had been asked to put a price
to these features.
Mr. Debomy answered that they had only been asked what would be likely to push them
to a decision in favour of these systems instead of other mentioned devices.
Answering another question, Mr. Debomy stated that qualitative studies do not provide
statistics but help understand how people reason about a certain product.
Mr. James Rosenstein (Ygomi LLC) commented that some of the results achieved
rather contradict what car manufacturers had found themselves in their own very
detailed studies and asked how representative the sample had been.
Mr. Debomy answered that the word “representative” could not be used when talking
about qualitative studies. He stated that these qualitative techniques had been used by all
major companies in the world for the last half century and that he had no experience of
57

participating in a study that had not brought results that had proven to have some
meaning. He said that you can not avoid finding out the main ways of thinking of people
about a certain phenomenon.
2.1.4.10 eSafety Forum, the next four years: A Panel discussion
Mr. André Vits (European Commission) stressed the strong commitment of the
European Commission to the eSafety initiative. The societal benefits are too high to stop
developing the initiative because there is no business case. He stated that the European
Commission would support the Forum in the field of communication as well.
Mr. Michael Hollingsworth (ACEA) noted that the eSafety Forum was not unique but
that there were not too many fora like it. It was one of the very first initiatives to take an
integrated approach. He stressed that the vision of an integrated approach needed to be
maintained.
He said that communication was one of the key factors and that it should be a much
higher priority over the next four years.
He highlighted the need to pay more attention to the infrastructure.
Mr. Hollingsworth also underlined the need to deal with cleaner mobility in a holistic way
and to continue preventing significant overlaps.
Mr. Henrik Forsgren (Volvo Car Corporation) stated that the major potentials in the
future were within the field of active safety.
He recalled the importance to keep in mind that if we wanted to sell these systems, there
had to be incentives.
Often, the technology exists but the most important thing is to find standardisation,
collaboration on an international basis. This is very important to prepare the new systems
for the entire market.
Mr. James Rosenstein (Ygomi LLC) highlighted the impressive development of
nomadic devices. If people want to carry with them their basic source of information at
home, in the car, at the office, this has to affect our thinking.
The second trend that he stressed was the growth of mobile wireless broadband.
He stated that data was becoming a huge market factor in itself and it also affected the
world of vehicle manufacturers and road transport.
He welcomed the emphasis placed on the Communications WG and the work being
done by Commissioner Reding trying to keep the European telecoms markets open and
technology neutral.
58

He concluded by estimating that data privacy would be an issue that would affect the
European thinking and market.
Mr. David Ward (FIA Foundation) mentioned the significant achievement that had
consisted in shifting the policy debate from passive safety to active safety.
He argued that the challenge was the need for solid results in implementation. The
fundamental problem goes beyond the communication challenge. It is about creating
demand for eSafety products.
Mr. Ward does not think that Member States fully appreciate what could be achieved if
more weight was put behind some of the initiatives.
He stated that the real big challenge concerned the highly competitive segment (small car
segment) and that we had to do more than communicate.
He insisted on the need to have Member States coming forward and thinking
innovatively of ways to create incentives, which should not necessarily be fiscal
incentives. It may also be a matter of regulation.
He concluded by stating that we needed to think of clever ways of really stimulating
customer demand for safety products and to get over this gap between the price that the
manufacturer could offer and the price that the customer was willing to pay.
Mr. Rui Camolino pointed out that the major challenge that we would have is
communication.
2.1.4.11 Conclusions and Next Steps
Dr. Arnold van Zyl (ERTICO) presented the Conclusions of the 5 th eSafety Forum
Plenary Meeting.
The eSafety Forum:
1. Endorses the Recommendations of the DG eCall.
2. Takes note that eCall Driving Group has completed its work, but asks its experts to
continue the work of the subgroups.
3. Urges all Member States to sign the MoU, especially the large ones (DE, UK, F, E).
4. Encourages all stakeholders to work together to complete the open issues, and in
particular to study the business case and the possible use of incentives.
5. Proposes to initiate the analysis of an eCall system designed for two wheelers.
6. Decides to establish the Communication Platform, as proposed by the User Outreach
WG.
59

7. Emphasises the need of having a broad involvement from all relevant stakeholders in
the Platform.
8. Takes note of the announcement of FIA Foundation to take the leading role.
9. Asks eSafety Support to send without delay invitations to join the platform to all
potential partners, inviting them to the first meeting.
10. Invites the Communication Platform, as its first task, to analyse the possibility of
launching a pilot campaign on ESP.
11. Takes note on the links established with EuroNCAP and supports the cooperation
with it.
12. Endorses the creation of a new WG on “ICT for Clean Mobility”, highlighting the
necessity to avoiding overlapping with other activities in this area.
13. Supports the creation of a new WG on “Services Oriented Architecture”, pointing
out the importance of linking to current activities.
14. Decides to re-launch the activities of the RTD Working Group, and highlights the
importance of enhancing the ICT topics of the ERTRAC agenda.
15. Welcomes the results achieved so far by the Communication WG, and encourages
the continuation of its activities.
16. Endorses the recommendations of the Implementation Road Map WG, supporting
the continuation of the Working Group activities.
17. Acknowledges the recommendations of the Heavy Duty Working Group.
18. Takes note of the activities of the TRACE project, following the recommendations
of the Accident Causation WG and emphasizes the need of cooperate with other
initiatives in this topic.
19. Invites the Commission to adopt the Recommendations of the HMI WG.
20. Welcomes the re-launch of the RTTI WG activities.
21. Proposes further elaboration of the Recommendations of the Digital Maps WG.
60

2.2 6 th safety Forum
2.2.1 Introduction
The 6 th eSafety Forum Plenary Meeting, chaired by Dr Rosalie Zobel (morning) and Mr
André Vits (in the afternoon) took place in Brussels on 8 November 2006. Focus was on
how to move ahead with the Intelligent Car and eSafety initiatives in Europe.
Highlights of the meeting included the presentation of the 3 rd Commission
Communication “Bringing eCall back on track” and the presentation and adoption of the
FP7 ICT for Mobility Strategic Research Agenda. Mr Rudolf Strohmeier, Head of the
Cabinet of MsViviane Reding, Member of the European Commission, responsible for
Information Society and Media presented a keynote address. The second keynote
address focused on “Meeting Europe’s challenges in Mobility and Sustainability in the
Member States” and was given by the Finnish Presidency.
The ongoing eSafety Working Groups presented their latest activities, and two new
Working Groups were presented: Service oriented architectures and ICT for Clean
Mobility. The next steps for the work of the Digital Maps were presented and discussed.
Participants also received an update on the Intelligent Car Initiative, the eSafetyAware!
Communication Platform, the new European Statement of Principles on HMI, Code of
Practise for the introduction of Intelligent Vehicle Safety Systems and the progress
towards a common communications architecture in Europe.
2.2.2 Agenda
Chair: Ms Rosalie Zobel, Director, DG Information Society and Media, European
Commission
09.00 – 09.30 Registration and Coffee
09.30 – 10.00 High-Level Opening Remarks
- Mr Fabio Colasanti, Director-General, DG Information Society and Media,
European Commission
- Ms Monica Sundström, Chairman of the ERTICO Supervisory Board
- Mr Ivan Hodac, Secretary General of ACEA
10.00 – 11.00 Strategy Session: Moving ahead with the Intelligent Car
Initiative and eSafety in Europe
Strategic Research Agenda for ICT for Mobility in FP7 –
presentation, discussion and adoption
- Mr Ulf Palmquist, EUCAR
The 3 rd Commission Communication: Bringing eCall back on track
- Mr Juhani Jääskeläinen, European Commission
11.00 – 11.30 Coffee Break
62

11.30 – 12.15 The eSafety Working Groups (1)
eSafety Effects Database and Survey on Deployment – Prof. Risto
Kulmala, VTT
RTTI WG - Status report – Dr Heinz Friedrichs, Bosch
Communications WG - Status report – Mr Uwe Daniel, Bosch
International Cooperation WG Survey – Mr Jacob Bangsgaard,
eSafety Support
12.15 – 12.30 Keynote Address: Mr Rudolf Strohmeier, Head of Cabinet of Ms.
Viviane Reding, Member of the European Commission, responsible for the
Information Society and Media
12.30 – 14.00 Lunch break
Chair: Mr André Vits, DG Information Society and Media, European Commission
14.00 – 14.45 The eSafety Working Groups (2)
Service oriented architecture WG - a new eSafety Working Group
– Mr Peter Van der Perre, ERTICO
ICT for Clean Mobility WG - a new eSafety Working Group – Mr
Wolfgang Reinhardt, ACEA
Digital Maps - next steps – Mr Rob van Essen, Tele Atlas
14.45 – 15.15 Reducing market introduction risk through Code of Practice
Dr Juergen Schwarz, DaimlerChrysler
15.15 – 15.30 Coffee Break
15.30 – 15.55 Keynote: Meeting Europe’s challenges in Mobility and
Sustainability in the Member States
15.55 – 16.40 Information Items
- The priorities of the Finnish Presidency
Mr Matti Roine, Min. of Transport and Communications of Finland
- eSafetyAware! – the eSafety Communication Platform
Ms Kristin Oxley, eSafety Support
- Road Map of the Intelligent Car Initiative
Mr Fabrizio Minarini, European Commission
63

- Commission Recommendations on HMI – the new ESoP
Ms Valérie Moutal, European Commission
- Towards the Common Communications Architecture in Europe
Dr Karl-Oskar Proskawetz, COMeSafety
16.40 – 16.45 Summary and next steps
Mr André Vits, European Commission
16.45 Adjourn
64

2.2.3 Participants List
Last Name First Name Company
ALONSO Josefina CTAG
ANDERSSON Espen European Commission
ANDRÉ Paulo Auto-Estradas do Atlântico, SA
ANGGRAENI Rini eSafety Support
ARNDT Martin ETSI Secretariat
AUGELLO Daniel Renault
BAGISLAYICI Suleyman AIRC
BALLAUX Louis Honda Motor Europe Ltd.
BANGSGAARD Jacob eSafety Support
BARRIO Javier eSafety Support
BATOCCHI Franck PSA Peugeot Citroën
BAUWENS Anneleen eSafety Support
BELHAJ Tamim Faurecia
BODI Enrique LISITT - Instituto de Robotica
BOETHIUS Eva European Commission
BONARI Catherine MTETM/Sétra
BONENFANT-JEANNENEY Camille
Représentation Permanente
de la France auprès de l’UE
BOOTSMA G.
Ministry of Transport, Public Works and Water
Management
BRUCHERT Philipp Hill and Knowlton
BUCK Manfred DaimlerChrysler AG
BURGESS James ERTICO
CARROTTA Alessandro eSafety Support
CHATELIER Isabelle ATX Group
COLASANTI Fabio European Commission
COULON-CANTUER Myriam European Commission
CSAPODI Csaba
Permanent Representation of Hungary
to the European Union
DANIEL Uwe BOSCH
DAVILA GONZALEZ Emilio European Commission
DE LA PEÑA ELENA SPANISH ROAD ASSOCIATION
DEMASEURE Katia Navteq
DICKE Bernhard VDA
DIEHL Manfred Umicore AG & Co. KG
DOENMEZER Arzu Infineon Technologies
EHMANN Ute Umicore AG & Co.KG
EPPEL Friedrich OAMTC
ESCUDERO Montserrat SERNAUTO
FAJKA Jindrich Ministry of Transport, Czech Republic
FERREIRA Francisco European Commission
FLURY-HÉRARD Bernard Ministère de l'Equipement
FOND Michel Orange
FORSGREN Henrik Volvo Car Corporation
FRANZEN Stig Chalmers Industriteknik - CIT
FRIEDRICHS Heinz BOSCH
GAILLY Jean-Paul Directorate- General Mobility and Road Safety
GÓMEZ SÁNCHEZ Mariano FITSA FOUNDATION
GRILL Johann ADAC
HABERL Josef BMW Group
65

HAGLEITNER Walter ADAS_Management_Consulting
HAON Sylvain POLIS
HEDLUND Bjorn CLEPA
HOEBERECHTS Guy European Commission
HODAC Ivan ACEA
HOLMBERG Elina European Commission, DG INFSO
HYATT Michael SMMT Ltd
ISKOUSSOVA Nadja Ministry of Interior and Kingdom Relations
JÄÄSKELÄINEN Juhani European Commission, DG INFSO
JACOBS René BELGIAN ROAD RESEARCH CENTRE
KAISER-DIECKHOFF Uwe BOSCH
KAMALSKI Theo Siemens VDO Automotive
KEEN Keith European Commission, DGTREN
KNIBB Brian Knibb Gormenzano & Partners
KORNEMANN Horst Continental
KULMALA Risto VTT Building and Transport
LARSSON Rikard Autoliv Electronics Europe
CLEPA-European Association of
LAURENT Pierre
Automotive Suppliers
LOVELL Catherine Department for Transport, UK
LUCAS Antonio DGT-University of Valencia
MAES Willy EC – DG TREN
Dutch National Police Agency (KLPD), EU
MALENSTEIN Jan
Affairs
MEDEVIELLE Jean-Pierre INRETS
MINARINI Fabrizio European Commission, DG INFSO
MORITA Hiroshi Toyota Motor Europe
MOUTAL Valerie European Commission
MULLER Sophie Hill & Knowlton
NIELSEN Michael ERTICO
PAULISSEN Maurice EUROCITIES
OXLEY Kristin eSafety Support
PALMQUIST Ulf EUCAR
European Commission, DG Enterprise and
PEKÁR Ferenc Industry
PICHL Martin Czech Ministry of Transport
POTVIN Michel Renault
PROSKAWETZ Karl-Oskar COMeSafety
QUOIDBACH Liévin Navteq
RATAJ Juergen DLR e.V.
ACEA (The Association of European Vehicle
REINHARDT Wolfgang Manufacturers)
RODRIGUEZ Susana Hunton & Williams
ROINE Matti Min. of Transport and Communications, Finland
ROSENSTEIN James Ygomi LLC
ROSENQUIST Mats Volvo Group
RYDMELL Christer Vägverket - SRA
SAHLQVIST Erika European Commission, DG INFSO
SALBERT Thomas Siemens VDO
SCHELHASE Alexander Infineon Technologies Liaison Office
SCHETTINO Monica ERTICO
SCHOCKMEL Paul IEE
SCHWARZ Juergen DaimlerChrysler
66

SEDDI Malika ASFA
SERGEYS Filip Honda Motor Europe Ltd
SILVA Irina eSafety Support
SOLLIEN Thomas Ruud
Ministry of Transport and Communications
Department
of Public Roads and Rail Transport, Norway
SPELL Sabine Volkswagen
STEVENS Alan TRL Limited
STROHMEIER Rudolf European Commission
SUGANO Takashi Nissan Motor Manufacturing
SUNDSTRÖM Monica ERTICO
SUZUKI Tomoji DENSO AUTOMOTIVE Deutschland GmbH
Ministerie van Binnenlandse Zaken en
TERPSTRA Tjerk
Koninkrijksrelaties
Ministry of Transport, Public Works and Water
VAN DER KROON Paul
Management
VAN DER PERRE Peter ERTICO
VAN ESSEN Rob Tele Atlas
VAN LAER Peter Agoria automotive
VAN UYTFANGE Dimitri Umicore, Electro-Optic Materials
VAN ZYL Arnold ERTICO
VERDEE Serge JAMA Europe
VITS André European Commission, DGINFSO
WEISS Michael Visteon Corporation
Transport Research Group Southampton
WILLIAMS Malcolm University
YAMAKAWA Takehisa JAMA
ZOBEL Rosalie European Commission
67

2.2.4 Minutes
2.2.4.1 High Level Opening Remarks
Mr Fabio Colasanti, European Commission
In his opening remarks, Mr Fabio Colasanti highlighted important political events for
eSafety in the past year:
◊ i2010 High Level meeting in Helsinki, showcasing the importance of eSafety
technologies for people’s everyday life.
◊ ITS World Congress in London.
◊ Intelligent Car initiative launch in February. The eSafety Forum has an important
role in this initiative.
◊ Mid-term review of the White Paper on Transport, highlighting the importance
of industry.
◊ Report showing that the car industry ranks on the top on R&D activities, in
comparison with other industries
◊ .
Mr Colasanti stressed that there will be important changes in the way the issue of safety
in transport will receive support for research in the future. A serious support effort is
planned, with transport and safety research themes receiving a substantial amount under
FP7.
Ms Monica Sundström, ERTICO
In her opening remarks, Ms Monica Sundström focused on ERTICO’s eSafety activities.
She stressed the need for a systems’ approach towards the implementation of eSafety
systems and stresses that ERTICO is in a unique position to help push the eSafety
agenda forward. Three elements are essential for eSafety deployment:
• The technology: the eSafety Forum is a best practice example with its large
number of high profile research projects and strategic developments in the
framework of the Forum Working Groups.
• The organisational model: ERTICO has established a number of fora to support
the research effort and to work closely with the eSafety Forum. The TMC Forum
is a good example of this cooperation.
• The framework conditions: there is a need to raise public awareness of eSafety
benefits, look at incentives and cooperate to create an international standard for
interoperability between eSafety systems.
Mr Ivan Hodac, ACEA
Mr Ivan Hodac said in his opening remarks that the eSafety Forum is a success, that
ACEA is proud of it and that it wants the Forum to continue its work. He then
proceeded to give remarks on a number of topics:
68

• Cars21 presented an integrated approach to safety and environment. It is clear
that it can not be the responsibility of the car industry alone to make the
necessary improvements. It is the joint responsibility with the member states to
go down this road.
• In Verona ACEA signed the road safety charter. ACEA also recently joined the
eSafetyAware! Communication Platform.
• Innovation is crucial for Europe. We must not forget that we have to be much
better because we are also more expensive. Innovative products have to stay
affordable and generate a positive return for the investor.
• Research is important. In FP7 there is a large proportion that goes to ICT. This
funding is extremely important but would not do much if it was not
complemented by the industry. The car industry is the largest private contributor
to innovation in Europe.
• HMI European Statement of Principles: ACEA will not discuss it further if there
is no firm commitment from the nomadic device suppliers.
• The international Cooperation WG has not fully delivered. It must be more than
a talking shop.
• The digital Maps WG should be re-launched.
• The WG on ICT for clean mobility must focus its work. Emphasis must be on
mobility and not on the vehicle exclusively. Its work should supplement the
conclusions of the Cars 21 Report.
• eCall: ACEA is still waiting for the breakthrough, for the German and UK
governments to sign the MoU. The MoU was signed by ACEA and ERTICO
several years ago. ACEA is committed to eCall, but underlines that it will not
work on this alone.
Mr Ivan Hodac concluded by stating that there is still much work ahead in the eSafety
Forum and he assured participants that the automotive industry will continue to be a part
of it.
2.2.4.2 Strategy Session: Moving ahead with the Intelligent Car Initiative and
eSafety in Europe
Strategic Research Agenda for ICT for Mobility in FP7 – presentation, discussion
and adoption, Dr Ulf Palmquist, EUCAR
Dr Ulf Palmquist gave a presentation on the Strategic Research Agenda for ICT for
Mobility in FP7 produced by the eSafety RTD WG. The RTD WG harmonised and built
an over-all “picture” of the outcomes of the DG INFSO consultation workshops on:
◊ Mobility Services for People
◊ Mobility Services for Goods
◊ Intelligent Vehicle systems
◊ Cooperative Systems
◊ Field Operational Tests
This provided a basis for a Strategic Research Agenda for eSafety, incorporating the
outcome of the Open Consultation.
69

The document “Stakeholders’ contribution to the FP7 Work programme on ICT for
mobility” represents the viewpoint of a group of stakeholders on this issue, for the
European Commission to review and assess. The document was produced in the period
April – September, with input from multiple stakeholders groups. The content is closely
aligned to the workshop themes.
During the discussions that followed the presentation, the chair Rosalie Zobel underlined
that the strategic research agenda is not only a work programme for the European
Commission. Industry should also use this strategic research agenda in their R&D
efforts. It is not only an FP7 agenda but an agenda for all the research being done in the
companies, universities and other organisations around Europe.
After the discussion the “Strategic Research Agenda for ICT for Mobility in FP7” was
adopted by the eSafety Forum.
The 3 rd Commission Communication: Bringing eCall back on track, Mr Juhani
Jääskeläinen, European Commission
Mr Juhani Jääskeläinen gave a presentation on the Pan-European eCall: its purpose and
progress at European level and in the Member States. Details were given on the content
of the 3 rd Commission Communication due to be released soon. In this Communication
the Commission will stress the following:
◊ The Member States are not on track with implementing the necessary
infrastructure to enable their emergency rescue services to handle E112 calls or
eCalls.
◊ Due to lack of progress, the deployment plan for eCall has already been shifted
forward one year.
◊ ACEA has expressed in a letter to the Commission that it will not take any
further steps until a clear commitment from the Member States is obtained.
◊ To get eCall back on track for 2010 deployment, the Commission proposes three
lines of action:
- Actions for engaging the Member States
� Time-table for infrastructure deployment (4 actions)
- Actions for engaging the industry
� Renewing industry’s commitment, negotiations on an
agreement (4 actions)
- Actions facilitating deployment
� Commission support (5 actions)
The Communication is in the final stages of the Interservice Consultation and will be
adopted by the Commission on 23 November. It will be presented at the
Telecommunications Council on 11 December (Finnish Presidency) and the Council will
present its conclusions in the March 2007 Council Meeting (German Presidency).
70

Ms Rosalie Zobel, the chair, reminded the Forum that it is everyone’s responsibility to
make eCall happen. There are obviously problems in the Member States. The third
communication is a top down tool, but the Commission needs the Forum’s help to also
achieve the bottom up effect. eSafety Forum stakeholders should approach the relevant
authorities in their respective Member States and try to push eCall forward. The larger
Member States need now to get onboard as this will create a snow ball effect in eCall
deployment.
2.2.4.3 The eSafety Working Groups (1)
eSafety Effects Database and Survey on Deployment, Prof. Risto Kulmala, VTT
Prof. Risto Kulmala gave an overview of the eSafety Effects Database which is available
online at www.esafety-effects-database.org. Its’ main aim is to maintain an up-to-date
overview of the effects of different intelligent vehicle systems. The database is based on
studies, conference papers and articles.
As a starting point, the eleven priority systems identified by the eSafety Implementation
Road Maps Working Group have been included in the database, but information is also
available on additional systems. The content provided per application includes: a
description of the system, summary of safety effects and studies.
The members of the eSafety Forum are encouraged to supply additional data to Risto
Öörni, administrator of the eSafety Effects Database: risto.oorni@vtt.fi
Regarding the Implementation survey which has been carried out during 2006, it aims at
finding what is the current status of the deployment of the 11 priority systems identified
by the Implementation Road Maps Working Group.
The survey has been sent to the eSafety national observers in July and to the European
Commission’s national contacts, but so far there have only been responses from five
member states, 21 are still missing. The survey links to the IVS Promotion benchmarking
study.
71

RTTI WG – Status Report, Dr Heinz Friedrichs, Bosch
The RTTI WG was re-launched on 2 May 2006. The “Action Plan for Energy Efficiency:
Realising the Potential”, COM(2006)545 makes reference to RTTI as a means for
developing markets for cleaner, smarter, more energy-efficient and safer vehicles.
The WG will deliver conclusions rather than recommendations as there will be a need for
further actions by both the European Commission and the Member States. The
European Commission should take a coordination role and the Member States should
establish national solutions based on pan-EU requirements. A decision on when and how
to implement the conclusions will be left to the Commission and the Member States.
A review of road traffic related criteria, expectations, needs, etc. is currently being carried
out. Input from the eSafety Forum is encouraged and appreciated.
The WG aims to prepare the way for more detailed work with the Member States, e.g.:
◊ to adopt a common implementation strategy according to European standards
for the extension of RTTI services.
◊ to provide safety relevant data free of charge through the service chain under
public control.
◊ to take into account the ‘basic functionality and standards’ definition for RTTI
services
A preliminary report will be produced during the first quarter of 2007. An exchange of
information with the Communications WG and Implementation Road Maps WG will be
sought. Input will be given for the German Council presidency conference in June 2007
in Berlin.
During the discussions that followed the presentation, Mr Jan Malenstein (Dutch Police)
appealed, from the emergency service operators’ side, to support emergency dynamic
routing, characterising it as a very powerful function.
Communications WG – Status Report, Mr Uwe Daniel, Bosch
Mr Uwe Daniel gave a status report on the activities of the Communications WG. The
WG has been working in close cooperation with a number of FP6 projects dedicated to
vehicle communication. The main goal is to bring together the efforts of all stakeholders
and provide a holistic picture of the situation.
Why is the WG focusing on V2X communication (Vehicle-to-Vehicle and Vehicle-to-
Infrastructure)? Because it can help avoid the most severe accidents and thereby save
lives. Cooperative traffic can also save fuel and reduce congestion, so even road
operators can benefit from it. New urban, interurban, freight and logistics and public
transport applications can result from V2X communication.
The most important issue has been spectrum. In Europe it is a challenge to get all the 25
Member States to agree on one line of thought for spectrum allocation. The WG aims to
push forward the work on standards and spectrum allocation, and a list of applications
with their bandwidth requirements is in preparation.
Mr Uwe Daniel reminded the audience that the following is needed:
◊ a common set of standards.
72

◊ protected spectrum (ideally with a worldwide, exclusive slot for safety critical
applications with low bandwidth).
◊ a common European, if not worldwide market to overcome the threshold
problem and to gain economies of scale.
There are however some challenges:
◊ Standardisation
o all components must have an exactly defined behavior to guarantee
safety functions.
◊ Spectrum Requirements
o maximum delay times, QoS needed, free of charge.
◊ Business Case
o Threshold problem, dissemination.
◊ International Harmonisation
o economies of scale, international trade.
The Communications WG will write draft recommendations by June 2007 for discussion
within the eSafety Forum. The Final Report/Recommendations will be presented to the
European Commission by October 2007.
During the discussions that followed the presentation Mr Ulf Palmquist (EUCAR)
commented that the Japanese have already reserved protected spectrum and asked if this
meant that Europe had to adapt to the Japanese standard. Mr Uwe Daniel answered that
it will be very difficult to get an international uniform standard as the world is divided in
three regions spectrum-wise.
Mr James Rosenstein (Ygomi) mentioned that there is a discussion in the US on the
needs of additional700 MHz and asked if a similar discussion was ongoing in Europe. Mr
Uwe Daniel informed that there is no such discussion at the moment, but that maybe
this question should be raised since the 700 MHz spectrum would enable safety
applications to function also in remote areas.
Mr Wolfgang Reinhardt (ACEA) pointed out that before v2v communication can bring
real benefits it should have a certain penetration and asked if the Communications WG
chair had explored how mobile phones could be used to bridge the infrastructure gap.
Mr Uwe Daniel answered that this was one of the possibilities examined. However,
mobile cellular communications do not assure the proper quality of services, such as the
minimum response time. The new generation of mobile communications could maybe
adapted to the requirements of v2v communication.
International Cooperation WG, Mr Jacob Bangsgaard, eSafety Support
Mr Jacob Bangsgaard presented the results of the questionnaire that was distributed to
the eSafety Forum and the members of the International Cooperation WG. Fourteen
replies were received and most expressed satisfaction and all but one wanted to
participate in future meetings.
73

The opinions of what should be the key objectives of the International Cooperation WG
varied greatly. There was a wide range of opinions on what topics should be discussed,
but there was agreement that there should be more focused discussions in future
meetings.
Experts from all regions should be present at the meetings, not just European experts.
Europe, Japan and US were mentioned as key regions.
One of the questions asked was what targeted missions could be organised by the
Working Group? The suggestions included:
◊ Common missions in relation to ITS World Congresses (Beijing, New York,
Stockholm)
◊ eSafety session and press events at motor shows
◊ Targeted missions to Japan, US, China, India, Australia
◊ Visits to industry stakeholders in Europe (e.g. Bosch)
◊ Organise international events with a focus on lessons learned and what can be
done to facilitate deployment
◊ Organise missions based on requests from other eSafety Working Groups
◊ Missions related to standardisation events
In order to improve the outcome of the WG, there is need to raise the level of
commitment from the stakeholders and make it clear what is expected of them. The
meetings must have participation of the relevant stakeholders from the different regions
and in addition questions could be prepared in advance to be answered during the
meetings.
During the discussion Mr Wolfang Reinhardt (ACEA) asked how the objectives could be
achieved with just one meeting per year, without a follow up, stating that there is a need
to look into how the WG could be structured better.
Mr Jacob Bangsgaard explained that everyone would like to see a better use of the WG in
the future. On the basis of the answers received, a new draft of terms of reference will be
produced which will then be presented to the eSafety Forum. Mr Bangsgaard asked all
stakeholders to respond to the questionnaire in order to have the best possible basis for
redefining the work of the WG.
2.2.4.4 Keynote Address: Mr Rudolf Strohmeier, Head of Cabinet of Ms
Viviane Reding, Member of the European Commission, responsible
for Information Society and Media
Mr Strohmeier´s address focused on the i2010 Intelligent Car Initiative, ITS
implementation in the Member States, public awareness and the Eurobarometer study
results.
Regarding the i2010 Intelligent Car Initiative, the European Commission has worked
very hard on realising its three pillars. On the political side, the Helsinki event presented
the eSafety issue and emphasised the challenge of getting the user onboard by showing
the practical impact of the technologies.
74

Mr Strohmeier said that DG Information Society and Media has been working closely
with DG TREN in preparing the mid-term review of the White Paper on Transport. For
the first time the paper recognises the contribution of each transport mode and ITS in
achieving safer, smarter and cleaner mobility.
Hestressed the need to bring the benefits of the information society to citizens,
highlighting eCall as a good example. However, for eCall to happen, Member States need
to invest in the necessary infrastructure. This is why the EC will set out stricter
requirements for the Member States with the publication of the “Third Communication
on eCall”. In order to facilitate ITS implementation the EC will take a broader view of
the policy tools to be used and will consider using structural and cohesion funds to
facilitate ITS deployment.
Regarding awareness activities, eSafety Aware has been launched and the EC will support
its work as an observer. The first campaign of the eSafety Communication Platform will
be on ESC. eCall may be the focus of a subsequent campaign.
Lastly Mr Strohmeier talked about the Eurobarometer survey and the answers it
provides. The major findings include the high importance the consumer puts on safety
when choosing a car. However, the public is not inclined to pay extra for safety. There
are no major differences in the attitudes between countries. Price, safety and fuel
consumption are the top issues influencing choice. Some citizens don’t see eSafety as
improvements to safety. For eCall, the issue of data privacy does not seem to trouble
Europeans and they consider the benefits to be greater than the disadvantages. There is a
demand for intelligent systems in vehicles, but there is a need to overcome issues such as
the systems’ perceived high price.
2.2.4.5 The eSafety Working Groups (2)
Service-oriented architectures WG – a new eSafety Working Group, Peter Van der
Perre, ERTICO
Mr Peter Van der Perre defined service-oriented architectures: as architectures for
installing, starting, stopping, updating and removing vehicle-and traveller-related services
(a service is a unit of work done by a service provider to achieve desired results for a
service consumer. Examples are navigation, traffic information, incident warning,
floating car data,eCall & bCall).
A lot of progress has been achieved for autonomous systems, the connected vehicle is
the next frontier to be attained.
Having a WG on Service-oriented architectures comes in response to the impact services
will have on safety. There is also a need to develop a common approach to overcome
market fragmentation. The objective of the WG will be to describe the state-of-the-art
and identify what is missing to accelerate market introduction.
Mr Van der Perre also presented a draft ToR for the WG which included:
◊ Definition of SOA for vehicle-related and traveller-related services
◊ Description of state-of-the-art
◊ Providing market outlook
◊ Identify missing elements for deployment
◊ Identify steps to facilitate market introduction
75

The stakeholders for this WG could come from the OEM’s, Telco operators, suppliers,
service providers, etc.
The Forum members were invited to express their interest in participating in the WG to
Mr Van der Perre. Potential participants should also indicate their expectations from the
group and what their role should be. The eSafety Steering Group will identify an industry
chair and co-chair.
During the discussion, Mr Wolfgang Reinhardt (ACEA) said that the WG should focus
on re-launching the telematics market in Europe. The WG should analyse why this failed
ten years ago. At that time, the technology was not ready to support the industry’s
enthusiasm. It was believed that the manufacturers could do it alone. This has now
changed, technology is not a problem any longer and the vehicle manufacturers have
come to understand that they can not do it alone. But the manufacturers now want to
have the business issue and the technology issue solved before a market relaunch can
happen. In his opinion the commercial issues should be solved. This will make
implementation much easier. The WG should be used to integrate the things done in
FRAME and CVIS and bring them all together, in an effort to integrate all the
architectural solutions developed so far.
ICT for Clean and Efficient Mobility WG – a new eSafety Working Group, Mr
Wolfgang Reinhardt, ACEA
The aim of the WG is to identify and promote the potential benefits eSafety/ICT
applications & services can bring towards cleaner and more energy-efficient mobility for
people and goods. Its’ objectives are to:
◊ Identify & assess the ICT applications with strongest potential to yield
environmental benefits;
◊ Examine measures to reinforce the environmental compatibility & sustainability
of mobility;
◊ Examine potential for education & support tools to promote environmentfriendly
driver behaviour;
◊ Cost-benefit assessment of measures to reduce environmental impact of mobility;
◊ Identify measures to promote & support deployment.
The eSafety Forum is invited to nominate experts to participate in the work. Interest
should be expressed to Mr Paul Kompfner (ERTICO). The first meeting will take place
on 6 December 2006.
During the discussion following the presentation Mr Daniel Augello (Renault) pointed
out that the WG should identify and promote existing solutions as well, not only
concentrate on finding new solutions.
Dr Arnold van Zyl (ERTICO) remarked that the WG’s ToR is not aimed at addressing
vehicle specific measures for cleaner mobility. The WG will look at how ICT can
enhance the systems approach for cleaner mobility.
Digital Maps – next steps, Mr Rob van Essen, Tele Atlas
76

Mr Rob van Essen began by giving an overview of the work of the Digital Maps WG. It
was operational from April – December 2005 and the objectives were to:
◊ Define a business model for Public-Private partnerships that will ensure the
availability of attributes relevant to eSafety in digital maps.
◊ Create a Public/Private cooperation model to collect, maintain, certify and
distribute the eSafety attributes that can be integrated into the digital roadmap
database.
The current navigation maps form a good basis for the development of eSafety maps.
But the quality must be improved. However, the cost associated with this upgrade should
be minimal as users are not willing to pay extra for safety. The solution could be to
optimise field data collection and data flow from public to private sector. A combined
solution is necessary.
The state of play regarding the outcome of the WG´s work is the following:
◊ Recommendation to discuss next step between WG and EC was not followed.
◊ Communication of the results to Member States did not take place.
◊ Public Private Project (ROSATTE) to implement recommendations was rejected
by the eContentPlus program.
◊ Informal continuation of ROSATTE to date without concrete results
o Public-private cooperation will be unsuccessful without external
funding.
Mr van Essen concluded by presenting the next steps:
o Steps by the Public-Private sector: The ROSATTE Cooperation Platform to
submit a project proposal under EC FP7 (2007-2012) for financial support for
development, test and validation of the road safety attributes exchange
infrastructure, associated tools and related applications.
o Steps by the Commission
o To support the ROSATTE Cooperation Platform in submitting a
successful project proposal.
o To increase awareness of the results of the Working Group Digital Maps
at Member State level.
o To request the Member States to facilitate the creation of a national
registry of available eSafety attributes in cooperation with the ROSATTE
Cooperation Platform.
During the discussion Mr Henrik Forsgren (Volvo Cars) commented that if safety
systems should be built based on digital maps, then maps have to be really up to date and
asked how was this going to be achieved.
Rob van Essen answered that the Actmap project has looked into this and has achieved
some successful results, but more work needs to be done. The FeedMap project is
looking into taking this work further.
77

2.2.4.6 Reducing the market introduction risk through Code of Practice, Dr
Juergen Schwarz, DaymlerChrysler
Dr Schwarz’s presentation focused on:
o Motivation of the Project RESPONSE 3
o Safety Benefit and Product Safety of Driver Assistance Systems
o Challenges and Consequences for OEM and suppliers developing ADAS
o Legal aspects of a Code of Practice (CoP)
o Results of the CoP
o Rollout CoP
As a summary, the Response 3’ Code of Practice for ADAS aims at:
o Translating the key issues of “reasonable safety” and “duty of care” into
engineering practice.
o Function as the basis for a definition of "safe" ADAS development and
testing also from a legal point of view.
o Agreement on these development guidelines between all stakeholders as basis
for company internal translation and/or optimisation of system design
specifications and complementary verification methods.
2.2.4.7 Keynote: Meeting Europe’s challenges in Mobility and Sustainability in
the Member States, Dr Matti Roine, Min. of Transport and
Communications of Finland
Dr Roine’s presentation focused on Transport policy and ITS in Finland, the priorities of
the Presidency, road safety and new technologies, the pan-European Emergency Call
Service - eCall and examples of eSafety applications in Finland.
The Finnish Presidency’s ITS priorities are the following:
o ITS seen as a essential element in the development of the whole Knowledge
Society.
o Major national interests in transport system level needs in safety, security and
cooperative systems.
o eSafety Implementation Road Map seen as a suitable basis.
o Strong support for the implementation of the pan-European eCall Service.
Regarding eCall, Finland has taken a real step towards implementation by signing the
MoU, by promoting the single European emergency number 112 or E112, and by
upgrading and modernising the emergency centres.
Dr Roine concluded by stating that:
o ITS is taking a prominent role in the new transport policy.
o At national level, more understanding and commitment is needed.
o The i2010 ”Intelligent Car Initiative” and eSafety Programme including the
deployment road map are heading in the right directions.
78

o The Pan-European Emergency Call System eCall will be the first real Europeanwide
ITS service.
o However, the development is too slow and needs faster progress and
commitment from all stakeholders is needed.
2.2.4.8 Information items
eSafetyAware! – the eSafety Communication Platform, Ms Kristin Oxley, eSafety
Support
Ms Kristin Oxley gave an overview of the establishment of eSafetyAware! The
Communication Platform was established in June 2006 and is chaired by the FIA
Foundation. There are 30 Founding Members representing the automotive industry,
automotive clubs, road safety authorities, insurance industry and service providers. The
European Commission acts as an observer.
The first campaign will be on Electronic Stability Control (ESC) given its proven
crash/casualty reduction effect and given the fact that there is a clear lack of public
awareness. The pilot campaign will be launched in 2007. Core Campaign Materials will be
designed to inform the consumer and an event will be organised in spring 2007.
Further campaigns are planned for other high-priority eSafety applications.
Road Map of the Intelligent Car Initiative, Mr Fabrizio Minarini, European
Commission
Mr Fabrizio Minarini presented the progress and future plans for the Intelligent Car
Initiative. The achievements of this first year of activities include, per pillar:
1 st Pillar:
o Adoption of Commission Communication on the “Intelligent Car”.
o Workshop to discuss spectrum implications for "Intelligent Car" applications -
Mandate to study harmonised radio spectrum use for safety critical application of
"Intelligent Car" systems in the EU.
o European Parliaments resolution on eCall, adopted with large majority
o The 5th Plenary Meeting of the eSafety Forum.
o Finalisation of Commission Recommendation on safe and efficient in-vehicle
information and communication systems: Update ESoP on HMI.
2 nd Pillar:
o FP7 preparation: Stakeholders paper; workshops; 1 st work programme
finalisation "ICT for Mobility”.
o FP6: start of CVIS; COOPERS; SAFESPOT – call 4 projects –.
o FP6: Successful demonstration of the full eCall service chain by the Integrated
Project GST Rescue.
3 rd Pillar:
79

o Launching event of the "Intelligent Car" at the Autoworld museum Brussels by
Commissioner Reding.
o Establishment of “eSafety Aware”.
o Call for a comprehensive benchmarking study on activities in promoting and
deploying intelligent vehicle safety systems in the EU.
o Call for a feasibility study on a Independent Conformance testing and
performance assessment programme in the EU for "Intelligent Car" systems.
o Eurobarometer survey on the use of telematic systems in vehicles”.
In terms of current and future activities, a number of actions/activities are underway or
have been planned:
1 st Pillar:
o Adoption of the 3rd eSafety Communication: Bringing eCall back on track (end of
the year).
o Start an eSafety Working group on "ICT for Clean Mobility“(October 06).
o Adoption of the Commission Recommendation on safe and efficient in-vehicle
information and communication systems (November 06).
o Meeting of the Safety Forum (8 November).
o Follow up the recommendation on the establishment of a European CoP for the
development and testing of ADAS - RESPONSE 3 - (2007)
o Establishment of a road map on incentives for "Intelligent Car" safety systems.
(Beginning 2007).
o Commission Communication on the first year assessment of the "Intelligent Car"
(monitoring exercise) (March 07).
o Final report from CEPT on harmonised radio spectrum use for safety critical
application of intelligent Car systems in the EU (Nov 2007).
2 nd Pillar:
o FP7: First and Second Call of FP7 for the ICT for Mobility Challenge (beginning
and end of 2007).
o FP6: End of PREVENT; GST; AIDE; HUMANIST (2007).
o Preparatory work for setting up Field Operational Tests (end 2006 - 2007).
3 rd Pillar
o First event of the eSafety Communication Platform. Launch of the ESC
campaign (May 07).
o Results of the benchmarking study. (May 07).
o ITS Europe Congress Aalborg DK; ITS World Congress Beijing China (June-
October 07).
o Results of the feasibility study on Conformance testing and performance
assessment programme for intelligent Car systems (August 07).
o Intelligent Car Yearly Event Organised jointly with PREVENT exhibition (12-15
September 07).
80

o Results TRACE project on EU database of accident causation data (December 07).
o Results eImpact project on the impact assessment of intelligent Car safety
systems (December 07).
o GST Integrated Project final workshop and Demonstrations (eCall) (February 07).
o Establishment through the 2nd FP7 call of a comprehensive, technical and
socio/economic assessment program, based on Field Operational Tests (FOT)
(2008).
Commission Recommendation on HMI – the new ESoP, Ms Valérie Moutal,
European Commission
Ms Valérie Moutal gave an overview of the goals of the new ESoP, which:
1. Should promote the Goal of the eSafety Initiative
o by helping to introduce well designed systems into the market.
o by taking into account both risks and benefits of these systems, thus not
impeding innovation.
2. Should respect the capabilities and constraints of all stakeholders and the market
o by being applicable during development process in terms of complexity, costs
and time even by small system manufacturers.
o by taking into account the fact that the driver finally decides whether he
buys/uses i.e. a fully integrated navigation system, a nomadic device or a
paper map.
3. Should clearly distinguish between principles on installation, information
presentation, interaction
o since the distribution of responsibility and solutions depends on these aspects
.
o in order to maintain a logical structure easy to understand and to work.
o without redundancy or cross references .
The next steps which will be taken include:
o Publication of the Recommendation in the Official Journal (December 2006).
o Forwarding the text to the European Parliament, the Council, the Economic
and Social Committee and the Committee of the Regions (December 2006).
o Dissemination of the document towards all stakeholders (EC, MS, eSafety
Forum members).
o New voluntary agreement from MS, car industry andalso from nomadic
suppliers, professional organisations (9 months).
o Evaluation and monitoring of the new ESoP (18 months).
81

Towards the Common Communications Architecture in Europe, Dr Karl-Orkar
Proskawetz, COMeSafety
Dr Proskawetz gave an overview of the COMeSafety Project. Its’ main aims are:
o Worldwide harmonization of the basic radio system.
o Recommendation for and consolidation of work of European projects.
o Push forward a co-ordinated EU Frequency Allocation Process.
o Support and co-ordinate Standardization.
o Support the eSafety Forum.
He then proceeded to explain why there is a need for a common understanding of
architecture, there is:
o Need for a common view on types of communication
o Need to nail down common components/interfaces (standardization)
o Need to provide guidance with respect to proper use of technologies
A detailed discussion of the architecture approach will take place in a workshop on 27
November.
2.2.4.9 Summary and next steps
The chair, Mr André Vits, concluded the meeting by presenting the Forum’s conclusions
and next steps. The eSafety Forum:
o Adopts the Strategic Research Agenda for FP7 ICT for Mobility and encourages
all the stakeholders to apply it.
o Strongly supports the 3rd eSafety Communication: Bringing eCall back on track.
o Encourages all Members to answer the International Cooperation WG
questionnaire in order to redefine its activities.
o Endorses the objectives of the new Working Group on Service Oriented
Architectures, highlighting the importance of addressing business model issues.
o Supports the goals of the new Working Group on ICT for Clean Mobility,
emphasizing that it should focus on system aspects.
o Digital Maps – Need to further discuss the next steps and actions.
o Welcomes the Code of Practice developed by RESPONSE 3.
The next meetings will take place in:
o 28 February – 1 March:
eSafety Forum Plenary meeting.
Brussels, along with GST final Workshop and Demonstration.
o 8 May:
High Level Meeting with Industry.
Rome, along with the launch of the eSafetyAware! campaign.
82

o 13 or 14 September
eSafety Forum Plenary meeting.
Versailles, along with the Prevent Demonstration and iCar events.
83

Chapter 3 - ESAFETY
STEERING GROUP
MEETINGS
85

This chapter contains the minutes of the four eSafety Steering Group meetings held in
2006.
3.1 19 th eSafety Steering Group meeting
Date: 7 February 2006
Venue: eSafety Support Office, Brussels
Link:http://www.esafetysupport.org/en/esafety_activities/esafety_forum/steering_grou
p_meeting/esafety_forum_steering_group_meeting_7_february_2006.htm
3.1.1 Agenda
10:00 – 10:15 Welcome. Approval of the agenda and the minutes of the
18 th meeting
- Review of action points
10:15 – 10:35 Presentation of project eSafety Support
- Overview of Project Work Programme and activities
10:35 – 10:45 Recap of the plans for eSafety Forum 2006
- Objectives and Workprogramme 2006
- Working Groups
- The Steering Group
- eSafety Forum and i2010
10:45 – 12:00 Discussion and decision on eSafety Forum organisation in
2006:
- Forum agenda and events in 2006, including plenaries
- Approval of the eSafety Support work plan
- New WG: Services oriented architectures
- Steering Group chair and membership
- Publications and dissemination activities
12:00 – 13:00 Lunch
13:00 – 13:30 EuroNCAP and Communication Platform
13:30 – 14:45 Working Groups Activities:
- Review of WG recommendations and their Follow-up
(eSafety Support)
- Communications WG (the 2 nd Meeting)
- eCall, User Outreach, RTD, Road Maps
86

14:45 – 15:00 ASECAP intervention
- Discussion
15:00 – 15:15 Standardisation supporting eSafety
- Presentation of the ongoing activities in ETSI, CEN, ISO,
ITS-SG, debrief of meeting 3 February
- Discussion
15:15 – 15.45 Information Items
- Presentation of new projects (CVIS, SafeSpot, COMeSafety,
TRACE, eIMPACT)
- i2010 Intelligent Car Launch event
- eSafety and eCall – Status of the reports in the European
Parliament and the Council
- London ITS World Congress and TRA Goteborg
- Workshop on Spectrum Requirements
- 2 nd International WS on Communications
- Other events
87

3.1.2 Participants List
Organisation Name
ACEA REINHARDT Wolfgang
ASECAP CAMOLINO Rui
ASECAP DIONELIS Kallistratos
BMVBW NIGGESTICH Roland
CLEPA PELLISCHEK Gloria
DEKRA MAURER Hans Jürgen
EC – DG ENTR PEKAR Ferenc
EC – DG INFSO DAVILA-GONZALEZ Emilio
EC – DG INFSO JAASKELAINEN Juhani
EC – DG INFSO VITS André
ERTICO NIELSEN Michael
ERTICO VAN ZYL Arnold
eSafety Support BANGSGAARD Jacob
eSafety Support HAIDUC Daniela
eSafety Support SILVA Irina
EUCAR PALMQUIST Ulf
EurAPCo SCHECTER Pierre-Henri
FIA GRILL Johann
ECTRI MEDEVIELLE Jean-Pierre
Ministry of Transport of the Czech Republic,
Department for Strategy
PICHL Martin
VTT KULMALA Risto
88

3.1.3 Minutes
1 – Welcome, approval of the agenda and the minutes of the 18 th Steering Group
meeting and review of action points
The chairman, André Vits (EC) welcomed the members of the Steering Group, also
welcoming A. van Zyl (ERTICO) as the new co-chair of the group. The agenda of the
meeting and the minutes from the 18 th meeting were also approved. The chairman
observed that the SG meeting was scheduled exceptionally to take the whole day.
Emilio Davila (EC) reviewed the action points of the 18 th meeting (action list is
enclosed). eSafetySupport was tasked to produce action lists in the same format from this
meeting onward.
� Actions:
- EC to check the status of the .EU domain for eSafety Support website.
- eSafety Support to prepare an action list to be distributed to all Steering
Group members and Working Group chairs (recurrent).
- Steering Group members and Working Group chairs to provide information
for the eSafety calendar which is disseminated on the eSafety Support website
(recurrent).
2 – Presentation of project eSafety Support
Jacob Bangsgaard (eSafety Support) made a presentation of the eSafety Support activities
and called for the active participation from the eSafety Steering Group on deciding what
direction the project should follow. eSafety Support will build on eScope, but there will
be also new activities, for example the support to the Forum and possibility to fund
studies and organise workshops. User Outreach, Road Maps and eCall were supported.
Kallistratos Dionelis (ASECAP) inquired on the independence of the project. André Vits
indicated that eSafety Support will operate under an EC contract, but the SG has a role
in defining its work plan. Francisco Ferreira (EC) is the Project Officer monitoring the
eSafety Support contract.
Network of observes and regional meetings
Jacob Bangsgaard explained on the composition of the network of observers. The
eSafety Support Observer network will be more extensive than the one of eScope.
Regional meetings will be organised to get observers as well as other stakeholders more
actively to participate. Five regional meetings have already been planned.
Arnold van Zyl (ERTICO) proposed to use the Network of National ITS Associations
to solicit support and to find members. The network should get the invitation to the
regional meetings.
After a discussion, eSafety Support was asked to contact the Network, and to report in
the next SG meeting on the progress. eSafety Support will also be invited to give a status
report of its activities in the May eSafety Forum Plenary Meeting.
89

� Actions:
- eSafety Support to investigate the possibility of involving the Network of
National ITS Associations in the eSafety Forum activities.
- eSafety Support to circulate the list of Observers to the Steering Group
for feedback.
- eSafety Support to report at the May Forum Plenary of its activities.
Road Map under the eSafety Support
Jacob Bangsgaard gave the floor to Risto Kulmala who gave an update on the planned
work under the Implementation Road Map Work Package of eSafety Support. The
Working Group will be re-activated and next meeting will take place on 7 April to
discuss future activities. The Working Group will produce an updated impact database,
which will be placed on the eSafety Support website.
On the issue of impact assessment, Juhani Jaaskelainen (EC) reported that DG TREN
had ordered a study from COWI about the impact of safety systems. The study will be
made available to the Steering Group members when it is published.
� Actions:
- J. Jaaskelainen (EC) to send the COWI study to the Steering Group
members when it is published.
eCall under the eSafety Support
Jacob Bangsgaard gave the floor to Michael Nielsen, responsible with Rasmus Lindholm
on this WP, to report on the planned activities.
Wolfgang Reinhardt (ACEA) said that the positive business case had not so far been
identified. He suggested organising a meeting involving all the interested stakeholders,
focused on benefits and positive cash flow. Every stakeholder should identify his own
benefits of the implementation of eCall.
� Actions:
- eSafety Support to organise a meeting on the eCall positive business case.
eSafety Support User Outreach and dissemination activities
Jacob Bangsgaard gave a short overview of the planned activities. The Steering Group
should discuss the planned Communications Platform, and the extend of eSafety
Support involvement in each of the coming events, e.g. London ITS Congress. eSafety
Support will give support to the Intelligent Car launch event, this is already decided.
André Vits stressed the need to have the “eSafety Book” and a new eSafety brochure
ready for the next eSafety Plenary meeting in May. He asked the participants for their
ideas on how the Working Groups reports should be presented. Arnold van Zyl was of
the opinion that the publications should contain the essential messages of each Working
Group. eSafety Support should translate the recommendations into messages that are
easy to communicate.
90

Roland Niggestich (BMVBW, DE) indicated that the Working Groups’
recommendations should be translated into policy or regulatory actions, such as
Commission Communications. This would help to get political support and was
necessary if there was a need to present them to the Council. In particular this is
important for the Implementation Road Map, HMI and RTTI. He suggested reinstating
the RTTI and HMI Working Groups. André Vits confirmed that after the launching
event of the Intelligent Car, the EC was planning to move forward with the
Recommendation on HMI.
� Actions:
- eSafety Support to produce the “eSafety Book” and the eSafety Brochure
for the next eSafety Forum Plenary
3 – Recap of the plans for the eSafety Forum in 2006
Juhani Jaaskelainen presented the recap of the plans for eSafety Forum in 2006. A
discussion on the organisation of the eSafety Forum activities in 2006 followed.
Objectives and Workprogramme 2006
The objectives and the Workprogramme for 2006 were approved.
The Steering Group
The Steering Group role will remain the same, with the additional responsibility to
approve the work programme of eSafety Support.
The Chair of the Forum Plenary Meetings
Andre Vits (EC) proposed to renew the chairmanship of the eSafety Forum Plenary
meetings. The Forum could benefit of nominating an industrial chair, this would give it
more visibility and also the Forum would be more easily recognised as a Technology
Platform.
Roland Niggestich (BMVBW, DE), supported by Mr. Pichl opposed the proposal and
asked the Commission to continue to chair the meetings. Mr. Dionelis proposed that the
Presidency of the Union would be invited to co-chair the Forum meetings.
After a discussion, the Steering Group decided on the following structure for
chairmanship of the eSafety Forum Plenaries:
1. The overall chair stays with the EC
2. Co-chairs: ACEA, ERTICO
3. Co-chair: The EU Presidency (High-Level civil servant)
4. Co-chair: A stakeholder CEO from industry
The composition of the Steering Group
After a discussion, the Steering Group agreed to keep the current structure of Steering
Group co-chairs representing the EC, ACEA and ERTICO. The co-chairs will be
responsible for preparing the SG meetings.
91

André Vits (EC, chair) proposed strengthening the Steering Group especially on two
fronts: New Member States and user organisations, which were not sufficiently strongly
represented. He also suggested having the Telecom Operators (GSM Europe) as Steering
Group members.
Arnold van Zyl (ERTICO) supported inviting users, new Member States and a
representative of DEKRA to become members of the Steering Group. He also suggested
having as a member the chairman of EUCAR, representing the automotive industry. It
was also suggested that a representative of the Conference of European Directors of
Roads (CEDR) should be invited.
After a discussion on the possible new members, the Steering Group decided to invite
the following organisations/persons:
1. GSM Europe
2. Csaba Csapodi (Hungary)
3. Claes Tingvall (SRA, EuroNCAP
4. Volker Knapp (ADAC)
5. DEKRA
6. Chair of Eucar (this year DC)
� Actions:
- EC to send invitations to the new Steering Group member candidates
- Hans-Jurgen Maurer to propose a DEKRA representative to join the Steering
Group.
- J. Jääskelainen to propose a GSM Europe representative to the Steering
Group
4 – eSafety Agenda 2006
eSafety Forum Plenary meetings:
- 2 and 3 May, Brussels 1
- 8 November, Brussels
The meeting on 2-3 may will start at lunchtime on the first day, and include a dinner. The
8 November meeting is a normal 1-day meeting. It is also foreseen to organise a Forum
in Germany in April-May 2007.
Steering Group meetings:
- 4 April, Brussels
- 10 October, London
- 21 November 2
The meeting on 4 April will focus on the preparation of the May Plenary Meeting. The
1 The meeting decided to investigate if it would be possible to hold the meeting in Vienna.
This was found not to be possible, so the meeting will be held in Brussels.
2 This meeting was initially scheduled to Helsinki, to benefit from the IST 2006 Conference on
22-24 November. The conference now starts on 21 st , so the meeting has to be rescheduled.
92

meeting on 10 October coincides with the ITS World Congress. The SG also confirmed
that there will not be a formal meeting at the June TRA Conference in Gothenburg,
although members may use the opportunity to meet there.
5 - Working group activities
5.1 – Service-oriented architectures Working Group
Michael Nielsen (ERTICO) presented the draft Terms of Reference and work
programme for the new WG. The objective of the WG is to propose a road map for
service-oriented architectures. He suggested having the launching meeting during the
TRA in Goteborg, Sweden.
� Action:
- Steering Group to give feedback to the Service-oriented architectures
WG ToR and work programme and to suggest names for the working
group co-chairs before the next Steering Group meeting.
- Michael Nielsen to announce the new WG at the May Plenary meeting
5.2 – RTD Working Group and Security Working Groups
Ulf Palmqvist (Eucar) said that he was willing to restart the activities of the RTD
Working Group, and would call for a meeting to discuss this new phase. A. Vits
emphasized the importance of resuming the work, in view of the preparation of the new
Work Programmes for the new Framework Programme 7. Arnold van Zyl said that the
WG should collect all the research ideas from the other Working Groups. Jean-Pierre
Medevielle (ECTRI) indicated that certification should be a topic of the RTD WG.
André Vits pointed out that in the research priorities Gloria Pellischek’s (CLEPA) paper
on “Automotive eSecurity”, should be taken into account by the RTD WG.
A discussion took place on the convenience of creating a separate WG dealing with
security other covering it under the services oriented architecture WG. Emilio Davila
(EC) pointed out that identity management should be included as a topic, and that the
EU project SEVECOM was working on security. After a discussion, the Steering
Group decided to invite Gloria Pellischek’s (CLEPA) to write a ToR and identify
possible participants for the Security WG, in view adopting of a final decision in the next
meeting.
5.3 – New Working Group on Clean Vehicle
Andre Vits (EC, chair) proposed establishing a new Working Group on clean vehicles,
focusing on using ICT for energy efficiency. This topic was highly important on the
political agenda of the Commission, and one of the pillars of the Intelligent Car Initiative.
Arnold van Zyl (ERTICO) supported the proposal and said that ERTICO and ACEA
would co-chair the group, inviting also ASECAP from the beginning to join. Ferenc
Pekar (EC, DG ENTR) indicated that there was useful information in the CARS 21
report on this topic.
� Actions:
93

5.4 – eCall DG
- Gloria Pellischek’s (CLEPA) to write a ToR and identify possible
participants for the Security WG
- Steering Group to decide in the next meeting on the establishment of
WG on Security.
- ACEA and ERTICO to propose the ToR, membership and
workprogramme for the Clean Vehicle WG, before the next SG meeting
- eSafety Support to distribute the CARS 21 report to the Steering Group.
Further to the discussion under Point 2, Michael Nielsen (co-chair) gave an update of the
eCall DG and sub-working groups activities. Next meetings on eCall will be in Madrid on
16 th March, Budapest on 23 March and UK in April. The eCall DG aims to publish the
final recommendations report in April in time for the next eSafety Forum Plenary
meeting.
Juhani Jaaskelainen (EC) supported the idea to have a workshop on the positive business
case for eCall. The stakeholders who see a potential business case could attend the
meeting. He also reported on the idea to organise a workshop on incentives, date is yet
to be defined.
Discussion followed on the results presented by the Titley report in the European
Parliament. Arnold van Zyl (ERTICO) strongly requested all stakeholders to stay behind
the joint decisions and to give a common message from the eCall DG to Mr. Titley and
other MEPs.
5.5 - Implementation Road Maps WG
Further to the discussion in Point 2, Prof. Risto Kulmala (VTT) indicated that the WG
would like to add more priority systems to its existing list and to expand the number of
active members.
André Vits said that the EC would like to have the Implementation Road Maps
recommendations as part of the eSafety book to be distributed at the next eSafety Forum
Plenary meeting.
5.6 - Communications WG
Juhani Jaaskelainen (EC) reported on the last meeting, which took place in Mainz. The
WG is establishing two Task Forces, one on standardisation and another one on
spectrum issues. Interested parties should respond to the open call for membership.
Next meeting will take place on 6 th April in Munich.
6. User Outreach, EuroNCAP and the Communication Platform
Johann Grill reported on the User Outreach meeting of 6 February, the agenda included
the Communication platform, pilot campaigns and the Eurobarometer study.
Unfortunately it had been impossible to get Mr. Tingvall to attend the SG meeting, to
explain EuroNCAP views on the possible co-operation with the eSafety Forum.
94

Juhani Jaaskelainen (EC) pointed out that the Communication platform should be
established at the same time as the pilot campaign would take place.
7 - ASECAP intervention
Presentation by Rui Camolino (ASECAP) on the priority areas of ASECAP.
Michael Nielsen reported that TMC is being deployed in a standardised and certified way
in multiple EU Member States and other countries. He also indicated that he would like
to invite ASECAP to a meeting, in order to involve them more in the process and define
common grounds for cooperation, with special focus on eCall.
Kallistratos Dionelis (ASECAP) indicated that a letter sent to ASECAP would reinforce
the cooperation on eCall.
Rui Camolino informed that ASECAP’s projects have concentrated on Euro-regional
projects. A project called “Proactivity”, which aimed at finding the different priorities did
not get funding.
Roland Niggestich (BMVBW, DE) pointed out that work still has to be done on the
eCall minimum set of data. There is limited relevant information from the road
operators. In addition the information should be compatible with legacy systems.
� Actions:
- Roland Niggestich to suggest a new chair for the RTTI WG.
- ERTICO to organise a meeting with ASECAP to discuss ways to further
involve ASECAP in the eSafety activities, especially eCall.
8 – Standardisation supporting eSafety
Emilio Davila presented the ongoing activities of ETSI, CEN, ISO and ITS-SG.
A discussion followed on the chairmanship of the new CEN Working Group dealing
with eSafety standardisation.
� Action:
- Gloria Pellischek (CLEPA) to find a candidate from CLEPA by 10
February for the ETSI Working Group chairman. Everybody to provide
candidates’ names.
9 – Information Items
Emilio Davila presented the eSafety related events, which will take place this year:
• i2010 Intelligent Car Launching event, 23 February, Brussels
• TRA Goteborg, 12-16 June
• ITS World Congress, London 8-12 October
• 2 nd International WS on Communications – will take place after the ITS World
Congress in London on 13 October and is organised by COMeSafety.
95

10 – A.O.B.
No other business.
11 – Adjourn
The meeting was adjourned at 16:03.
96

3.2 20 th eSafety Steering Group meeting
Date: 4 April 2006
Venue: eSafety Support Office, Brussels
Link:http://www.esafetysupport.org/en/esafety_activities/esafety_forum/steering
_group_meeting/esafety_forum_steering_group_meeting_4_april_2006.htm
3.2.1 Agenda
10:00 – 10:15 Welcome and approval of the agenda
- Approval of the minutes of the 19th meeting
- Review of action points (eSafety Support)
10:15 – 10:30 Debrief of eSafety Support activities
10:30 – 11:30 Preparation of the 5th eSafety Forum Plenary Meeting
- Objectives, Venue, Draft Agenda
- Presentations and speakers
- Publications and material to be distributed
11:30 – 13:00 Steering Group and Working Groups Activities
- Steering Group composition and new members
- Services-oriented architectures WG (New)
Proposal for ToR and Workprogramme
- ICT for Clean Mobility WG (New)
Proposal for ToR and Workprogramme
- RTD Working Group, Security Working Group
Discussion and Decision on the Security WG
- Discussion about the re-launch of the RTTI WG
- eCall Driving Group
- User Outreach Working Group
Communications Platform and the Pilot campaign
Eurobarometer status
Discussion on the way ahead
13:00 – 14:00 Lunch

3.2.2 List of Participants
Organisation Name
ACEA HODAC Ivan
ACEA REINHARDT Wolfgang
ASECAP CAMOLINO Rui
ASECAP DIONELIS Kalistratos
BMVBW NIGGESTICH Roland
BOSCH DANIEL Uwe
BOSCH FRIEDRICHS Heinz
CLEPA PELLISCHEK Gloria
EC – DG ENTR PEKAR Ferenc
EC – DG INFSO FERREIRA Francisco
EC – DG INFSO VITS André
ERTICO NIELSEN Michael
ERTICO VAN ZYL Arnold
eSafety Support CARROTTA Alessandro
eSafety Support PUTZ Stéphane
eSafety Support SILVA Irina
EUCAR PALMQVIST Ulf
EurAPCo SCHECTER Pierre-Henri
FIA GRILL Johann
INRETS MEDEVIELLE Jean-Pierre
RENAULT AUGELLO Daniel
VTT KULMALA Risto
98

3.2.3 Minutes
1 – Welcome, approval of the agenda and the minutes of the 19 th Steering Group
meeting and review of the action points
The chairman, André Vits (EC) welcomed the members of the Steering Group. The
agenda of the meeting and the minutes from the 19 th meeting were also approved. André
Vits expressed to the Steering Group apologies from Cathy Jenkins, Martin Pichl and
Juhani Jaaskelainen who could not attend the meeting.
André Vits reviewed the action points of the 19 th meeting.
Concerning action point 1 – “EC to check the status of .EU domain for eSafety Support
website”, André Vits reported that the .EU domains will be opened on 9 May and the
European Commission will have some of the .EU domains.
Francisco Ferreira (EC) informed the participants that all EC e-mail addresses will be
changed to ec.Europe.eu.
� Action:
- Steering Group members to provide feedback to the Observers list,
which was distributed by eSafety Support.
Arnold van Zyl (ERTICO) reported to the Steering Group that the Network of the
National ITS Associations will have ERTICO as its secretariat. ERTICO will be close to
eSafety Support in maintaining the relationship between the project and the Network.
Michael Nielsen (ERTICO) said that a meeting will be organised in order to discuss the
positive eCall business case and prepare the workshop. All stakeholders will be involved
in the process.
Alessandro Carrotta (eSafety Support) informed the Steering Group that all information
has been gathered for the eSafety book to be distributed at the eSafety Forum Plenary
Meeting, 2 – 3 May. The first draft of the book will be provided to the EC by 7 April.
André Vits reported to the Steering Group that invitation letters to join the Steering
Group were sent to Csaba Csapodi (Permanent Representation of Hungary to the
European Union), Volker Knapp (ADAC), Gerhard Zeidler (DEKRA) and Kaisu
Karvala (GSM Europe Chair). Csaba Csapodi has already given a positive reply to join
the Steering Group.
Wolfgang Reinhardt (ACEA) informed the Steering Group that Volker Knapp will be
delighted to join the Steering Group even though there is not yet an official reply.
� Action:
- A meeting will be organised with ERTICO and ASECAP concerning
their involvement in eSafety, including eCall. The meeting will take place
on 2 May.
99

2 – Debrief of eSafety Support Activities
Alessandro Carrotta made a debrief of eSafety Support activities which included an
overview of the meetings which will be organised during the next months, an update on
eCall Support, overview of User outreach within eSafety Support and the planned
activities (including dissemination activities) for the next period.
Alessandro Carrotta gave the floor to Risto Kulmala (VTT) who gave an update on the
planned and already performed work of the implementation Road Map Work Package.
The existing road map is in process of being updated. The new road map will include
timelines and will be simplified in order to be easily used by decision makers. A database
on impacts of the eSafety systems is being prepared. Risto Kulmala showed the database
and its components to the Steering Group.
André Vits advised on the need to establish a clear definition of eSafety systems.
Risto Kulmala reported that he had discussed with the PReVENT project about how to
define the systems.
Wolfgang Reinhardt reported that during the Implementation Road Map meeting on 7
April eSafety implementation and definitions will be discussed.
André Vits advised the Implementation Road Maps Work Package to provide links to
the original studies in order to give value to the eSafety Impact database.
Wolfgang Reinhardt commented that it is difficult to separate the eSafety systems since
many of them overlap. It is however good to define them.
eCall under eSafety Support
Michael Nielsen reported that DG eCall will finish however the eCall activities will
continue regarding the deployment of eCall within the eSafety Support project.
André Vits said that the continuity of eCall Support goes in agreement with the eSafety
Support technical annex.
Wolfgang Reinhardt point out that eCall needs a letter of intent by EU Member States in
order to make eCall more binding. DG eCall will deliver the final report and define the
next steps. eSafety Support will take over the coordination of the different activities in
order to make these steps happen.
Alessandro Carrotta continued his presentation debriefing about the user outreach
activities.
André Vits reported that the User Outreach Working Group report will be included in
the eSafety book.
Kalistratos Dionelis inquired about the setting up of the Observers group.
André Vits informed that the observers group was formed to observe the quality of
eSafety Support work.
100

Michael Nielsen added that the Observers are there to feed information about national
activities to eSafety Support.
3 – Preparation of the eSafety Forum Plenary Meeting, 2 and 3 May
André Vits asked the Steering Group to provide suggestions for speakers.
Kalistratos Dionelis reported that ASECAP is willing to make a statement during the
High-Level Opening Remarks.
André Vits proposed having during the High Level Remarks a member state as well as a
MEP such as Gary Titley. André Vits reported that the EC will try to have Fabio
Colasanti (EC – DGINFSO) to present the “Strategic Overview of the eSafety
Initiative”.
After a discussion the Steering Group agreed that it will be the EC’s responsibility to
prepare the speech for the “Strategic Overview of the eSafety Initiative”.
André Vits informed the Steering Group that during the parallel sessions, the Working
Groups will discuss deeply their activities. Each Working Group will have at least 30
minutes discussion. The chairs should not spend too much time on the presentations
(there will be three presentations per Working Group) and should present enough
material to trigger the discussion. The Accident Causation Data WG session will be
integrated with the TRACE project.
André Vits indicated that the EC will try to get Ari Vatanen MEP to present the Keynote
Speech: “Europe’s challenges in Mobility and Sustainability”.
André Vits reported that Norway will sign the eCall MoU and that a statement could be
made at the end of the first day of the eSafety Forum Plenary meeting.
Michael Nielsen was of the opinion that if Norway is allocated time to make a statement
on the signature of the eCall MoU then the Member States should be given the
opportunity to make statements as well.
Arnold van Zyl suggested having an update of the signatures of the eCall MoU.
After a discussion the Steering Group agreed to not make changes to the proposed set
up of the Working Groups parallel sessions.
The discussion then followed to the agenda for the second day of the eSafety Forum
plenary.
Ivan Hodac (ACEA) volunteered to be the moderator of the morning session.
Francisco Ferreira (EC) proposed having the Communications WG during the session
“The eSafety Forum: Plenary Conclusions on new activities”.
Uwe Daniel (Bosch) reported that the Communications WG is planning to have the first
draft report the ITS World Congress (8 – 12 October, London).
101

André Vits proposed to have as speaker for the agenda section “Fuel Efficiency in road
transport” a Swedish company that conducted a study on fuel efficiency. Their study
could be presented not commercially but neutrally.
After a discussion the Steering Group agreed to have on the agenda for the second day
a general presentation in order to make the link to ICT and then follow to fuel efficiency
as more specific topic.
Arnold van Zyl proposed to have representatives from the accession countries in the
eSafety Forum plenary such as Romania and Bulgaria for the closing session “eSafety
Forum, the next four years: A Panel discussion”.
� Action:
- Steering Group to send suggestions for speakers to Arnold van Zyl for
the panel session “eSafety Forum, the next four years: A Panel
discussion”.
André Vits proposed to have the speakers from the “High-Level Opening Remarks” as
part of the closing panel chaired by Arnold van Zyl.
Alessandro Carrotta gave an update about the logistics for the eSafety Forum Plenary.
The venue will be the Diamant Conference and Business Centre. The location for the
dinner to take place on the first day of the Conference is still to be decided.
André Vits added that the participants will pay for the dinner.
� Action:
- Ivan Hodac to contact the Château Sainte-Anne as a possible venue for
the dinner to take place during the eSafety Forum Plenary, 2 May.
André Vits pointed out that the agenda and invitation should be sent to the eSafety
Forum members by 14 April, before Easter.
4 – Steering Group and Working Group activities
4.1 – Service-oriented architectures Working Group
Michael Nielsen reported that he sees a strong need to postpone the start the WG
activities until October/November in order to avoid duplicating activities with the GST
project. Therefore the session on Service-oriented architectures Working Group will
have to be removed from the agenda from the eSafety Forum Plenary. The WG will try
to figure out how to run different services in platform and inside vehicles. It will as well
consider how to help the Member States implement eSafety architectures.
� Action:
- Michael Nielsen to prepare a 2 – 3 page paper outlining the work
programme for the Service-oriented architectures WG.
102

4.2 – Presence of eSafety Initiative during the German Presidency
Roland Niggestich (BMVBW) reported that Germany, during the Presidency of the EU
in the first half of next year, will organize a meeting on traffic issues with the intention of
supporting innovation. The idea would be to include the eSafety initiative in these
meetings. Support would be required from eSafety Support in order to involve eSafety in
the presidency program. Roland Niggestich asked the Steering Group’s opinion on this
matter in order to report back to his ministry to see if this initiative should be pursued.
The German presidency would like to see discussed eSafety issues related to the Security
WG, RTTI WG, Implementation Road Maps WG and frequency issues. Germany agreed
to host the eSafety Forum Plenary during its presidency in the first half of 2007.
André Vits assigned this topic to be in the next Steering Group meeting agenda.
4.3 – ICT for Clean Mobility WG (New)
Arnold van Zyl presented the WG’s Workprogramme. The main objective is to
investigate the ICT contributions for the reduction of CO2 and other emissions by a
combined effort of Industry, Users, Public Authorities and Infrastructure operators. The
input of EuroRAP is important to this WG.
� Actions:
- eSafety Support will send the Workprogramme of the ICT for Clean
Mobility WG to the Steering Group to which the Steering Group should
provide comments/feedback.
- Arnold van Zyl will present at the next Steering Group meeting a ToR
and a chair for the ICT Clean Mobility WG.
4.4 – Security Working Group
Gloria Pellischek (CLEPA) presented the ToR for the eSecurity WG. The WG wishes to
tackle protecting stored digital data, avoidance of direct access to eComponents, and
protecting networked vehicles from mobile remote access. The WG’s ToR proposal is
very much research oriented.
Roland Niggestich reminded that product liability and protection against misuse or
manipulation are crucial issues, and that the possible violations of the Vienna convention
brought by the new solutions should be kept in mind.
André Vits pointed out that security should be considered as one of the implementation
issues in the Implementation Road Maps WG work and road maps. This means that the
current road maps needs to be updated in this respect.
� Action:
- eSecurity WG will contribute to the RTD WG and make links to the
Implementation Road Maps WG.
103

4.5 – RTD Working Group
Ulf Palmqvist (EUCAR) reported on the work already performed. By the end of May
there should be a meeting with all the RTD WG members. The report of the RTD WG
is expected later in the year, after the summer. There are 10 active members in
participating. The plan of the activities is to assist on consensus building for FP 7 and
have a meeting in July.
André Vits gave an update on the EC work on the programme of FP7. The objective of
the FP7 programme is to tackle a number of challenges such as societal challenges like
mobility and sustainable development. There are already 5 topics identified concerning
the Intelligent Car. DG INFSO is consulting the stakeholders in order to find what
topics should be in the FP7 programme.
André Vits also remarked that the first call of FP7 will probably not be out this year since
the work programmes will only be adopted by the EC and EP in late fall. DG INFSO is
looking for a balance between academic and industry research.
4.6 – RTTI WG
The new chair of the RTTi WG, Heinz Friedrichs (Bosch) presented the draft ToR and
the workprogramme. The WG aims to focus more on the traffic information and less on
traveller information. The WG is planning to produce a road map for RTTI. The calls for
participation are to be sent out in April and the WG is planning to complete its work by
the end of 2007. The quality and timeliness of information should be key issues in the
WG.
André Vits advised the chair to focus only on certain issues of RTTI since the scope of
the recommendations of the RTTI WG report was quite large.
4.7 – eCall DG
Michael Nielsen reported that the DG eCall is preparing the final recommendations
paper. The draft of the Final recommendations has been sent to the DG eCall and to the
Steering Group. Comments should be sent by 20 April. Certain issues still have to be
discussed like the MSD, which he would like to see engraved. Another open issue is the
meeting on the positive business case. The DG eCall is finalising its recommendations
but there will be continued support through eSafety Support.
André Vits pointed out that the industry should be mobilised to be present at the
standardisation level in order for eCall to succeed. All stakeholders should be extremely
active.
Ivan Hodac expressed disappointment at the low number signatures of the eCall MoU by
the Member States.
André Vits reported that Norway and the Czech Republic will sign the eCall MoU.
Michael Nielsen pointed out that in the DG eCall final recommendations, it is
recommended that the Member States take action like for example to improve their
104

PSAP’s. Improvements are needed to deploy eCall (according to the OEM’s the present
status is chaotic).
André Vits reported that the EC will take step forward on implementation of 112.
Infringements procedures will be applied to Member States who do not use 112.
� Action:
- eCall DG to finalise the recommendations report.
4.9 – User Outreach Working Group
Johann Grill (FIA) reported that the Communication Platform action plan will be
discussed within the WG. By the next meeting the first draft of the recommendations
should be completed. At the end of April the result of Eurobarometer study will be
available.
Johann Grill and Juhani Jääskeläinen had a meeting with the chair of EuroNCAP Claes
Tingvall. EuroNCAP is considering taking on board ESP and other active safety systems
but these would completely change the scope of EuroNCAP. The plan of the
Communication Platform is to have ESC has the first pilot campaign. Claes Tingwall also
discussed the Swedish perspective on the use of ESC and how Sweden is concentrating
on fleets rather than individual drivers in promoting ESC penetration.
André Vits reported that the EC will have 2 studies published on benchmarking and
performance testing.
� Action:
- André Vits will distribute the benchmarking and performance testing studies
to the Steering Group once they are published on the Official Journal.
5 – Information Items
Francisco Ferreira presented the information items, which included the voting of the
eCall Report in the EP, the Expert meeting on Emergency communications and
Workshop on Spectrum Requirements.
6 – Debrief of the Intelligent Car launch event
Fabrizio Minarini (EC) gave a debrief of the Intelligent Car launch event, which had 24
intelligent vehicles and 8 simulators on display. 400 participants from 250 stakeholders
and 85 journalists participated. The result was 93 press articles and 10 TV broadcasts in
15 EU countries and also in the USA, Mexico and South Africa.
He followed to express thankfulness to the eSafety Support team for the support
provided during the i2010 event for producing the video and assisting with additional
tasks. The sponsors of the buffet (ACEA, CLEPA, ERTICO and FIA) were also
thanked.
Arnold van Zyl commented on the i2010 event and how he would like to see what the
infrastructure would have to show to the public. Arnold van Zyl warned that the event
105

was too much car-oriented, and the importance of the road or the driver was mostly
forgotten. ASECAP was asked to present their systems and plans at the next SG meeting.
Fabrizio Minarini indicated that the i2010 initiative does not focus only on the car. In the
future the EC wants to focus on and integrated approach, which includes the vehicle and
infrastructure.
Fabrizio Minarini presented the three pillars of the Intelligent Car Initiative (Policy, RTD
and Customer awareness). He suggested that concerning the incentive schemes, a small
task force could be created or a workshop could be organized by eSafety Support. In
addition he reported that PReVENT is preparing a code of practice for the development
and testing of ADAS to be finalised by this summer. R&D focus: enhance performance
of active safety systems, truly co-operative systems, info-mobility for persons and goods,
and as the new while complicated domain, the field operational tests.
Concerning the field operational tests, Arnold van Zyl offered to get through the ITS
national associations network information about what is being done at the national level.
7 – Standardisation
Michael Nielsen gave a brief overview on standardization. A new CEN eSafety WG
was established. The nominated chair is Bob Williams.
André Vits reported that this WG does not have members yet. He advised the Steering
Group to be vigilant of the standardisation process namely ETSI’s work.
8 – A.O.B.
� Action:
- The Steering Group to assess who will participate from the eSafety
community in the eSafety standardization WG.
The next Steering Group meetings will take place on:
- 4 July
- 4 December
9 – Adjourn
The meeting was adjourned at 15:18.
106

3.3 21 st eSafety Steering Group meeting
Date: 4 July 2006
Venue: eSafety Support Office, Brussels
Link:http://www.esafetysupport.org/en/esafety_activities/esafety_forum/steering
_group_meeting/esafety_forum_steering_group_meeting_4_july_2006.htm
3.3.1 Agenda
10:00 – 10:15 Welcome and approval of the agenda
- Approval of the minutes of the 20th meeting and Steering
Group member list
- Review of action points (eSafety Support)
10:15 – 10:40 Debrief of the eSafety Forum Plenary Meeting, 2 and
3 May, Brussels
- Main decisions and recommendations
- Follow-up and next steps
10:40 – 11:25 Working Groups Activities – New Groups
- ICT for Clean Mobility WG: proposal for ToR and
Workprogramme
- Re-launch of the RTTI WG: ToR and membership
- Security WG
11:25 – 12:05 Working Groups Activities – Ongoing
12:05 – 12:30 Information Items
12:30 – 12:45 A.O.B.
12:45 – 14:00 Lunch
14:00 Adjourn
- Implementation Road Maps WG
- eCall Driving Group: open issues after Forum
- User Outreach Working Group: report on Communication
Platform meeting
- RTD Working Group: Consolidated Position paper on FP7
- Communications Working Group: recent activities
- London ITS World Congress:
o eSafety Steering Group meeting
o ICWG meeting
o 2nd International Workshop on Vehicle
Communications
- High-Level meeting i2010 Helsinki, 27-28 September
107

3.3.2 Participants List
Organisation Name
ACEA REINHARDT Wolfgang
ADAC LABUDEK Bernhard
ASECAP CAMOLINO Rui
ASECAP DIONELIS Kalistratos
BMVBW NIGGESTICH Roland
BOSCH DANIEL Uwe
DEKRA MÄURER Hans Jürgen
Department for Transport, UK LOVELL Catherine
EC – DG INFSO DAVILA Emilio
EC – DG INFSO FERREIRA Francisco
EC – DG INFSO JÄÄSKELAINEN Juhani
EC – DG ENTR PEKÁR Ferenc
ERTICO NIELSEN Michael
ERTICO VAN ZYL Arnold
eSafety Support CARROTTA Alessandro
eSafety Support PUTZ Stéphane
eSafety Support SILVA Irina
EUCAR PALMQUIST Ulf
FIA GRILL Johann
INRETS MEDEVIELLE Jean-Pierre
Ministry of Transport of the Czech
Republic
Ministry of Transport of the Czech
Republic
Permanent Representation of the
Republic of Hungary
to the European Union
HUTAROVA Helena
PICHL Martin
CSAPODI Csaba
RENAULT AUGELLO Daniel
VTT KULMALA Risto
108

3.3.3 Minutes
1 – Welcome, approval of the agenda and the minutes of the 20 th Steering Group
meeting and review of the action points
The chairman, Arnold van Zyl (ERTICO) welcomed the members of the Steering Group
and expressed apologies by the co-chairs Ivan Hodac (ACEA) and André Vits (EC). The
agenda of the meeting and the minutes from the 20 th meeting were approved.
Arnold van Zyl welcomed the new participants of the Steering Group:
o Helena Hutarova, Ministry of Transport of the Czech Republic
o Catherine Lovell, Department for Transport, UK
o Csaba Csapodi, Permanent Representation of the Republic of Hungary
to the European Union
o Hans Jürgen Mäurer, DEKRA
o Volker Knapp, ADAC (who was unable to attend the meeting and was
represented by B. Labudek)
o Rui Camolino, ASECAP (who from now on will attend the Steering Group
meetings on a permanent basis)
Alessandro Carrotta (eSafety Support) reviewed the action items produced in the last
meeting. A number of actions remain pending:
Action 1 – Steering Group members to provide feedback to the Observers list, which
was distributed by eSafety Support.
Action 5 – Michael Nielsen to prepare a 2 – 3 page paper outlining the work programme
for the Service-oriented architectures WG. The outline will be provided after the ITS
World Congress in October.
Action 8 – eSecurity WG will be discussed in today's meeting.
Action 11 – The Steering Group to discuss the possibility of creating a small task force to
work on incentives schemes, or the possibility to organise a workshop with the help of
eSafety Support.
Action 12 – The Steering Group to assess who will participate from the eSafety
community in the eSafety standardization WG.
Francisco Ferreira (EC) informed the participants about the call for tender for two
studies to be carried out under the Intelligent Car Initiative: the Benchmarking of
activities in promoting and deploying Intelligent Vehicle Systems (IVS) in the EU and the
feasibility of the setting up a performance testing programme for ICT based safety
systems for road transport. The benchmarking study was published on 10 May and
closed on 16 June and the feasibility study will open on 13 July and the evaluation will
take place on 18 July.
2 – Debrief of the eSafety Forum Plenary Meeting, 2 and 3 May, Brussels
109

Juhani Jaaskelainen (EC) presented the main conclusions of the last eSafety Forum
Plenary meeting. The meeting was defined “especially successful”.
In what concerns conclusion number 1 (endorsement of the eCall Recommendations by
the eSafety Forum), there are still open issues: the signature of the eCall MoU, SIM/SIMless
calls, incentives, standardisation and the application of eCall to two-wheelers.
Juhani Jaaskelainen also highlighted the decision endorsed by the eSafety Forum (as
proposed by the User Outreach Working Group) to establish the Communication
Platform, in which FIA Foundation will take the lead.
A number of steps will be taken as a follow up to the conclusions of the eSafety Forum
Plenary Meeting:
o EC Recommendation on the Revised ESoP on HMI : September 2006
o Opinion of the art. 29 - Data Protection Working Party on eCall privacy issues:
September 2006
o i2010 High-Level Meeting with a session on Intelligent Car, Helsinki 27-28
September
o Launch of the eSafety Communication Platform at the Helsinki Meeting
o 3rd eSafety Communication on eCall end of 2006: Implementation Status Report
and Further Measures
o Presentation and Discussion at the December 2006 TTE Council - Finnish
Presidency: Council Conclusions
o Follow-up of Digital Maps WG Final Recommendations: Workshop on access to
public sector information (RTTI, Digital Maps): End 2006
o Workshop on Public/Private incentives for eSafety: End 2006
o Next Steering Group Meeting: 11th October 2006, London
o Next eSafety Forum Plenary: 8 November 2006, Brussels.
3 – Working Groups Activities – New Groups
3.1 – Re-launch of the RTTI WG, ToR and membership
Uwe Daniel (Bosch) - chair of the Communications WG - presented a few slides on
behalf of Heinz Friedrichs (Bosch), RTTI WG chair.
The RTTI WG has now 14 members and will hold a meeting on 19 July in Berlin. The
chair will intensify dissemination about the WG in order to get more members. The main
proposals for the WG are:
o Improve information on the re-launch of the RTTI WG (e.g. the eSafety web
site)
o Active members of the WG will decide how to proceed
- with the analysis of the given recommendations and ToR
- to establish the work and time plan of the WG
- to broaden - if needed - the knowledge base by additional members
o Work will start on following items
- Generation of primary traffic data (how? where?)
110

- Wider use and development of RDS/TMC
- Minimum set of information across borders
- Evaluation of traffic data (incl. prognosis)
- Distribution of traffic data (media, frequencies)
- User interface requirements
o 2nd meeting will be scheduled in fall 2006
The ToR and its comments are accessible on the slide presentation prepared by the RTTI
WG chair.
3.2 – ICT for Clean Mobility WG: Proposal for ToR and Work programme
Arnold van Zyl outlined the ToR and Work programme (which was updated based on
the comments from ACEA). The aim of the WG is to identify and discuss the potential
benefits ITS applications might have with regards to cleaner and more energy-efficient
mobility for people and goods.
Background
The environmental effects of steadily increasing demand for mobility of people and
goods present challenges that need to be addressed in the interest of long-term
sustainability and public concern.
ITS per se means that traffic systems are designed in an intelligent way to secure
“sustainable mobility”, which stands for “the ability to meet the needs of society to move freely,
gain access, communicate, trade and establish relations without sacrificing other essential human (traffic
safety) or ecological (environment) values, today and in the future”. ICT is the technology behind
ITS and clearly relates to “communication”.
The application of ICT with regard to “cleaner and efficient mobility” generally means to
improve communications and the flow of information between v2v, v2i, i2v and i2i in
order to organize a smoother, more flexible traffic flow (people and goods) in a most
cost efficient way.
In this sense ITS applications could produce some positive environmental side effects,
for example infrastructure measures that reduce vehicles’ time spent in heavy traffic by
flexible traffic management systems (less consumption, less emission).
The eSafety Forum has proposed to look into the environment as a potential area for
future ITS development and deployment exploiting the architectures under development
for safety applications. This new Working Group should take the first steps to mobilise
the various sectors that need to cooperate to work towards identifying possible new
solutions.
Examples of the technical and non-technical work areas include:
o Environmental traffic management strategies & operations, e.g. traffic light
synchronisation, automatic traffic incident detection, congestion management,
parking management, urban goods delivery management, etc.
o Integrated traffic/mobility systems
111

o Infrastructural measures reducing the negative impact of mobility;
o Cooperative vehicle-infrastructure systems, e.g. optimisation of vehicle-traffic
management, in order to avoid congestion, which would have some additional
environmental secondary benefits;
o On-line environmental information services for drivers;
o Driver education and support for environment-friendly driving behaviour;
Objectives
o Discuss, which ICT applications and services for mobility have the strongest
benefits with regards to addressing environmental issues
o Examine the infrastructure relevant measures that could complement and
enhance environmental compatibility of mobility
o Environmental educational tools and feedback to drivers
o Cost benefit analysis of the measures
Participants
Around 15 – 20 people representing key stakeholders, users, public authorities,
infrastructure and telecom operators, automotive industry, transport industry, integrated
traffic management specialists, etc.
The following organisations have expressed interest in becoming members of the WG:
FIAT, BMW, Volkswagen, DaimlerChrysler, Renault, Volvo and EUCAR. Arnold van
Zyl would like to see FIA Foundation as well as the French and German Governments
and automobile clubs to become involved in this WG.
Daniel Augello (Renault) suggested having the participation of POLIS and CEDR at the
WG.
Juhani Jaaskelainen reminded the Steering Group members that the EC is pursuing the
Intelligent Car Initiative, which has a mandate to look into clean mobility. The ICT for
Clean Mobility WG should not overlap with other work being carried elsewhere on e.g.
energy efficiency.. The EC would like to see more work on the impact of user behaviour
to fuel efficiency.
Arnold van Zyl suggested starting a debate with the car industry on how to use the
information available to better avoid higher emissions. A clean driving strategy could be
developed depending on the information available. The implementation has to be done
by the automotive industry.
� Action:
Steering Group members to nominate members for the ICT for Clean
Mobility WG. Especially from the infrastructure side.
3.3 – Security WG
Roland Niggestich said that security will become a major issue for ITS. In Germany, a
group is being established working on HMI and security issues. He will receive a
statement on Security from the Federal Ministry of Research at a later date. This
112

statement will be distributed to the Steering Group once it is available and will be open
to discussion at the next Steering Group meeting where the Security WG topic will be
looked at.
Emilio Davila (EC) informed that there are several activities being carried out at research
level. There is the strategic objective in communications and budget will be provided in
the context of FP7. A new chair for the WG is needed.
Michael Nielsen (ERTICO) informed that Security was discussed during the ERTICO
Think Tank. At the moment there is a public/private initiative being carried out by
Thales. Thales could lead this WG.
� Action:
Michael Nielsen will report about a new chair for the Security WG at the
next SG meeting.
4 – Working Groups Activities – Ongoing
4.1 - Implementation Road Maps WG
Risto Kulmala (VTT) reported on the latest activities of the WG. The eSafety Priority
System Deployment Survey has been prepared and is being distributed at the eSafety
regional observers meetings organised by eSafety Support. The survey concentrates on
the market penetration and actions taken so far to implement the systems. EC will
distribute eSafety Priority System Deployment Survey to additional national contacts.
� Action:
EC to distribute the eSafety Priority System Deployment Survey to
additional national contacts.
The WG will organise a workshop on “Implementation Road Map for Dynamic Traffic
Management – Vehicle Systems co-operation” to take place on14 November 2006 at the
representation of Baden-Württemberg in Brussels.
Juhani Jaaskelainen proposed to invite to the workshop the IP’s: CVIS and COOPERS.
� Action: CVIS and COOPERS representative to be invited at the workshop on
“Implementation Road Map for Dynamic Traffic Management – Vehicle Systems
co-operation” to take place on14 November 2006 organised by IRM WG.
Another aim of the WG is to publish the results of the WG in conferences and as articles
in professional journals.
Bernard Labudek (ADAC) reported on a meeting with the chief editors of the club
magazines, which represent a market of 35 million readers. Next year they plan to
undertake a vast coverage of eCall in their publications.
113

Risto Kulmala finally reported on the new “eSafety effects database”, collecting data on
safety systems. This database will be expanded to all eSafety systems. The database can
be accessed on the website: www.esafety-effects-database.org.
Juhani Jaaskelainen remarked that this database should be used as a source that is widely
accepted and that can be used in the political discussion.
� Action:
Steering Group members to send to Risto Kulmala available studies to
help build the eSafety Effects database. SG members should also send
comments about the database.
4.2 – eCall Driving Group: open issues after Forum
Michael Nielsen informed the SG that the Final Recommendations of the eCall DG are
available on the eCall Toolbox (www.esafetysupport.org/ecalltoolbox). The eCall Road
Map has been updated, and now targets eCall deployment starting from 2010.
Michael Nielsen highlighted the importance of organising the Fields Operational Testss
since these will provide factual support to the implementation of eCall.
The main issues for the work for the rest of 2006 will be:
o Can VIN be used as vehicle identification, access to VIN databases (EC)
o Encoding of MSD (RESCUE) + standardisation
o Member States to sign MoU (EC)
- Paper on PSAP workload (eSS)
- Data privacy issues (EC)
o Will Member States allow eCall without a SIM? (EC)
o Set up meeting with Service Providers (eSS)
o Monitor ETSI_MSG standardisation (EC)
� Action:
The EC to work on the following issues as for eCall:
� VIN to be used as vehicle ID, access to VIN databases
� Member States to sign MoU
� Data Privacy issues
� Member States to allow a call without a SIM or not
� ETSI_MSG standardisation to be monitored
� Action:
The following actions should be undertaken under the eCall WP of eSafety
Support:
� Produce a paper on PSAP workload
� Set-up meeting with Service Providers
114

Roland Niggestich was of the opinion that there are three issues to tackle in what
concerns eCall: subsidiarity, privacy and the need for common agreed protocol at the
European level. The automotive industry also has to follow its own protocols.
Michael Nielsen clarified that Commissioner Reding had already answered the issue of
subsidiarity. The protocol issue has been solved by the eCall DG Recommendations.
Emilio Davila declared that a letter would soon be sent to the German government
answering the issue of Privacy based on article 29.
Michael Nielsen informed that a meeting with the Service Providers is expected to take
place in September. Rui Camolino confirmed that the motorway concessioners would be
willing to participate in this meeting.
4.3 – User Outreach Working Group and report on Communication Platform meeting
Johann Grill (FIA) reported on the last meeting of the User Outreach WG. The report
has for the moment been completed. The WG will go into hibernation until autumn
when the results of the Eurobarometer study are made available. The results will be used
to finalise the report.
Johann Grill wanted also to know what the SG’s opinion on continuity of the User
Outreach WG.
Johann Grill reported also on the first meeting of the Communication Platform meeting.
The Platform will be formed by organisations that are "able and willing". FIA
Foundation will lead the Communication Platform having David Ward as chair. The
Platform will be officially launched in September at the i2010 High Level Meeting in
Helsinki.
The Platform members will contribute either with a membership fee or with a
contribution in kind. There are at the moment 20 founding members. Membership for
founding members will be open until the end of July. After that the members will
establish rules for accepting new additional members.
The first pilot project will be on ESC. A major event on ESC will be organised at the
Bridgestone test-track in Italy in April-May 2007.
Arnold van Zyl informed that ERTICO will make a contribution in kind, however he
remarked he was disappointed by the fact that the event will be vehicle-centric. The
driver should also be considered.
Juhani Jaaskelainen reported that the Platform chose ESC for the pilot project given the
proven safety impact of this system, and its still low penetration on most parts of
Europe. The Platform will focus on the technologies and systems available in the market.
After the first year, there will be further campaigns, for example eCall will be focused on
at a later stage.
The Steering Group agreed to have eSafety Support provide administrative assistance
to the Communication Platform in the initial phase.
115

� Action:
eSafety Support to support the work of the Communication Platform by
providing administrative assistance. .
Wolfgang Reinhardt remarked that ACEA will observe the progress of the
Communication Platform. Automotive participation may be possible however not
foreseen for the time being. There are concerns about the use of the eSafety label, he
finds it premature to use this label. There is need for more efficient measurement to the
systems and products in order to have such a label. The quality of the systems should be
looked into before attributing such a label. He also said that the Communications
Platform should look into RTTI as well.
A discussion took place about taking decisions by consensus or by majority. Arnold van
Zyl reminded the SG members that the SG couldn’t revoke the choise of the pilot by the
User Outreach WG.
Daniel Augello expressed his disagreement in having ESC as the pilot project for the
Communication Platform. According to him RTTI should be the priority, the technology
is fully available in the market.
Juhani Jaaskelainen clarified that the EC supports to the Platform. The EC will support
the work of the Platform through eSafety Support. Furthermore, the Commission was
undertaking a large number of "in-kind" support actions, such as the Commission
Communications, Eurobarometer, running the eSafety Forum and its Working Groups,
and the i2010 initiative including the launch event earlier in the year. However, the
Commission's position was that the members willing to join the platform should finance
the campaigns. The Platform will not be under control of the eSafety Forum or by the
EC. The Platform will be fully controlled by its members.
Johann Grill summarised the discussion by stating that everyone supports an integrated
approach. However, the Communication Platform has to communicate a simple message
of existing systems to the end user. The Platform should be cautious not to mention
systems in RTD phase, such as cooperative systems, to the end users. Clear and simple
messages have to be transmitted. He was surprised by the position of ACEA, as the
platform and the choice of pilot had been discussed and agreed in the User Outreach
WG meetings with ACEA representatives. If it was difficult for ACEA to participate as
an organisation and cooperate on an ESC project, Johann Grill encouraged the
manufacturers to participate on an individual basis.
4.4 – RTD Working Group: Consolidated Position paper on FP7
Ulf Palmquist (EUCAR) reported on progress of the Consolidated Position Paper on
FP7 priority "ICT for Mobility". There were five thematic workshops organised by SG
INFSO, and a final consultation Workshops on 31 May, to which the rapporteurs of the
five Workshops and the RTD WG were invited. These workshops had the objective to
provide guidance to the Commission on the priorities for FP7. From the papers
produced by the rapporteurs of the five workshops will result the consolidated report by
the RTD WG. Ulf Palmquist reported that the discussions about this paper have taken
place with a number of experts via e-mail, and the document was being finalised.
116

This consolidated version will then be opened for public consultation on the web in mid-
July. The consultation will end on 25 August. After that the RTD WG will meet, and
there will be an open Workshop on 26 September.
Arnold van Zyl expressedconcern that the chair of the RTD WG had not provided a
ToR and a list of members for the WG. The paper that would be produced by the RTD
WG would not be submitted to the scrutiny of members. Informal consultations should
not qualify as work for the WG.
Michael Nielsen remarked the need to have all stakeholders involved in this WG.
Ulf Palmquist informed the SG that a meeting of the RTD WG was already planned to
take place in September.
o Action:
Ulf Palmquist to provide eSS a list of participants to the RTD WG (full list and
those who generated the report) and the updated ToR for publication on the website.
eSS will also distribute it to the SG participants.
o Action:
Ulf Palmquist to provide the Final Consolidated Report of the RTD WG after the
public consultation and after the WG endorses it in September.
4.5 – Communications Working Group: Recent activities
Uwe Daniel (Bosch) presented a diagram on the work of the Communications WG. The
works focuses on spectrum issues, standardisation and international co-operation. The
latest material produced by the WG will be available from the second week of July. The
WG will try to harmonise its work with the work of the COMeSafety project. The first
report produced by the Spectrum Task Force is expected in September.
Uwe Daniel was of the opinion that the Communications WG could benefit from the
FOT’s planned to take place under the FP7. It could be a good opportunity to show the
results of the communications field.
The World Radiocommunications Conference (WRC) will take place in 2009. Uwe
Daniel requested the help of the Steering Group to start planning for this conference.
The spectrum needs of RTTI should be looked at.
o Action:
Uwe Daniel to provide eSS with a list of participants to the RTTI WG. eSS
will distribute it to the SG participants.
5 – Information Items
The following important meetings and events will take place:
117

5 July – Implementation Road Maps Working Group Meeting
7 September – Communications Working Group meeting
18 September – Third eSafety Observers Regional Meeting, Turin, Italy
21 September – Fourth eSafety Observers Regional Meeting, Athens, Greece
27-28 September – i2010 High Level Workshop, Helsinki, Finland
8-12 October –ITS World Congress, London, UK
11 October – eSafety Forum Steering Group Meeting, London, UK, 9:00 – 10:30, at the
ITS Congress premises, South Gallery Room 3
11 October – International Cooperation Working Group, London, UK, 11:00 – 12:30,
South Gallery Room 3
13 October – International Workshop on Communications, COMeSafety, London, UK
8 November – eSafety Forum Plenary Meeting, Brussels, Belgium
14 November – Implementation Road Maps Workshop, Brussels, Belgium
Steering Group members interested in participating in the International Cooperation WG
meeting on 11 October should contact eSafety Support.
6 – A.O.B.
No other business.
7 – Adjourn
The meeting adjourned at 12:55
118

3.4 22 nd eSafety Steering Group meeting
Date: 11 October 2006
Venue: Excel Centre, London, UK
Link:http://www.esafetysupport.org/en/esafety_activities/esafety_forum/steering
_group_meeting/22nd_esafety_steering_group_meeting_11_october_2006.h
tm
3.4.1 Agenda
9.00 – 9.10 Welcome, approval of the agenda and the minutes
of the 21 th meeting
9.10 – 9.20 Report on Regional eSafety Meetings
9.20 – 10.00 Working Group Issues:
- RTD WG and Results of the FP7 consultation process
- ICT for Clean Mobility WG
- International Cooperation WG
- Security WG
- Service Oriented Architecture WG
10.00 – 10.30 Discussion: eSafety Forum Plenary meeting 8/11/2006
- Objectives
- Agenda
10.30 – 10.40 Information Items
- New European Statement of Principles (ESoP) on HMI
- 3 rd eSafety Communication
10.40 – 10.45 A.O.B.
10.45 Adjourn
119

3.4.2 List of Participants
Organisation Name
ADAC GRILL Johann
ASECAP CAMOLINO Rui
BOSCH DANIEL Uwe
BOSCH FRIEDRICHS Heinz
Department for Transport, UK LOVELL Catherine
EC – DG INFSO DAVILA Emilio
EC – DG INFSO JÄÄSKELAINEN Juhani
EC – DG INFSO MOUTAL Valérie
EC – DG INFSO MINARINI Fabrizio
EC – DG INFSO VITS André
ERTICO KOMPFNER Paul
ERTICO NIELSEN Michael
ERTICO VAN DER PERRE Peter
ERTICO VAN ZYL Arnold
eSafety Support BANGSGAARD Jacob
eSafety Support CARROTTA Alessandro
eSafety Support SILVA Irina
EUCAR PALMQUIST Ulf
INRETS MEDEVIELLE Jean-Pierre
Ministry of Transport of the Czech
Republic
PICHL Martin
Permanent Representation of the
Republic of Hungary
to the European Union
CSAPODI Csaba
Transport Research Centre, Czech
Republic
FENCL Ivan
VTT KULMALA Risto
120

3.4.3 Minutes
1 – Welcome, approval of the agenda and the minutes of the 21st meeting
The Chairman, André Vits (European Commission) welcomed the members of the
Steering Group and presented his apologies for not being present at the last meeting
which took place on 4 July. Apologies were presented for Ivan Hodac (ACEA), Volker
Knapp (ADAC) and Wolfgang Reinhardt (ACEA). The agenda and the minutes from the
21 st meeting were approved.
Alessandro Carrotta (eSafety Support) reviewed the action items produced in the last
meeting and also reported to the Steering Group on the Regional eSafety Observers
Meetings organised by eSafety Support.
Concerning the Third eSafety Regional Observers meeting which took place in Turin,
Alessandro Carrotta reported that it gathered representatives from Austria, Italy and
Southern Germany. There were close to 70 attendees.
Juhani Jääskeläinen (European Commission) added that Italy has signed the eCall MoU
and that Italian Government representative, Ciro Esposito (Presidency of the Italian
Council of Ministers) had confirmed during the meeting that Italy plans to go ahead with
eCall implementation. The automobile stakeholders confirmed their interest but were a
bit more pessimistic about the time table. Another positive aspect presented at the
Observers Meeting in Turin was the Austrian effort in developing an emergency call
service. The Austrian authorities are willing to move to the use of the pan-European
emergency call when this comes available.
Alessandro Carrotta proceeded to report on the Fourth eSafety Regional Observers
meeting which took place in Athens and gathered Greek and Maltese representatives. He
highlighted the revitalization of ITS Hellas and the presence of Aris Stathakis from the
Greek National Committee of Road Safety and who is actively promoting road safety at
the national level.
� Action:
eSafety Support to e-mail to the SG members the link to the eSafety
Observers meetings’ web pages (recurrent).
2 – Working Groups Issues
2.1 - RTD WG and Results of the FP7 consultation process
Ulf Palmquist (EUCAR) reported on the activities of the RTD WG. The RTD WG has
prepared a document with the consolidated views on the FP7 objective ICT for Mobility.
The document is named “Stakeholders’ contribution to the formation of the FP7 work
programme on ICT for Mobility”. This document was open to public consultation on
the EC Website:
http://europa.eu.int/information_society/activities/esafety/esafety_2006/concertation_
meeting_Leuven/index_en.htm
121

Ulf Palmquist reported that Ben Thancanamootoo did the technical editing of the final
document. The document covers all the five areas involved (Mobility Services for People,
Mobility Services for Goods, Intelligent Vehicle Systems, Cooperative Systems and Field
Operational Tests) and additionally horizontal issues.
André Vits notified the SG members that this document will be presented and adopted
at the 6 th eSafety Forum Plenary Meeting which will take place on 8 November in
Brussels.
� Action:
eSafety Support to distribute the printed version of final paper of the
RTD WG at the next eSafety Forum meeting. The invitation to the
Forum should include the electronic version of the paper.
André Vits emphasised that it is now time for the RTD WG to take the next step after
this milestone. Ulf Palmquist confirmed that the next meeting will take place in the first
quarter of 2007.
André Vits reminded that the eSafety WG’s are open and if the Forum members would
like to join, they are able to do so.
Arnold Van Zyl (ERTICO) commented on the RTD WG membership. According to
him, given the quality and amount of work ERTICO, through the eSafety Forum, WG’s
and projects, he was surprised that ERTICO is not represented in the WG.. Peter van
der Perre could be a possible nominee.
2.2 – ICT for Clean Mobility WG
Paul Kompfner (ERTICO) reported on the current status of the WG by reminding the
SG members that the draft ToR has been circulated and that the content concerning this
WG is included in the minutes of the last meeting. As soon as ACEA nominates a
representative, a meeting by this WG will be organised.
André Vits mentioned that the ToR and the chairs for the ICT for Clean Mobility WG
should be presented at the next eSafety Forum Plenary and participation to the WG
should also be opened to the Forum.
Paul Kompfner informed that he would not attend the next eSafety Forum making it
very important to nominate an ACEA representative as soon as possible.
� Actions:
eSafety Forum Chairs to prepare a presentation of the ICT for Clean
Mobility WG work programme for the eSafety Forum Plenary on 8
November.
ACEA to appoint a representative for the ICT for Clean Mobility WG
before the eSafety Forum of 8 November.
2.3 – International Cooperation WG
122

Jacob Bangsgaard (eSafety Support) reported on the activities of the International
Cooperation WG. The last two meetings took place in San Francisco in 2005 and in
Nagoya the year before. The WG brings together a group of 20 members, and discusses
eSafety activities in the different regions. The International Cooperation WG is looking
into how the activities of this WG could be improved. Jacob Bangsgaard informed that
the WG meeting which would take place immediately after this meeting (on 11 October)
would focus specifically on awareness activities.
Jacob Bangsgaard suggested that one way to turn the WG more strategic would be to
have smaller working groups in the different regions. These smaller working groups
would then meet at the ITS World Congress annually.
André Vits emphasised that the International Cooperation WG needs to deeply rethink
its activities. He suggested presenting a questionnaire to the eSafety Forum on the
Forum’s expectations and what direction the WG could take.
� Action:
Jacob Bangsgaard to prepare a questionnaire on the future of the
International Cooperation WG. It will be sent to eSafety Forum Members
by eSafety Support.
2.4 – Security WG
André Vits informed that Roland Niggestich could not be present at the SG meeting.
There have been discussions about a ToR for this WG. André Vits suggested further
discussing this WG at the next SG meeting.
2.5 – Service-oriented architecture WG
Peter van der Perre (ERTICO) reported that the WG has a draft ToR and a proposed
objective. At the moment the WG is missing a co-chair which could be a vehicle
manufacturer, for example someone who has been involved in the GST project. The
objectives of this WG are to provide a market outlook, identify missing elements, and
identify steps to facilitate market penetration.
Juhani Jääskeläinen (EC) was of the opinion that further discussions were needed since it
was intended to launch the WG at the next Forum Plenary.
Daniel Augello (Renault) pointed out that the key partners should be present. One sector
present should be the nomadic device maker, for example TomTom could be a member.
Arnold Van Zyl (ERTICO) added that the architecture should be extended. The
nomadic devices used in the vehicle should also be used in other travel related services.
Michael Nielsen agreed but warned that the WG should work on something concrete and
manageable. At the moment CVIS and the Nomadic Device Forum are already working
in this area.
123

Heinz Friedrichs (Bosch) suggested that the WG should include Knut Evensen, Timo
Kosch, the FRAME group and DG TREN activities.
Valérie Moutal (European Commission) added that the COOPERS project could also
participate in the WG.
Peter Van der Perre (ERTICO) was confident that the WG will be able to mobilise the
architecture projects and emphasised that certain points should be made clear before
opening the WG to the outside world. He proposed to report to the SG members before
the eSafety Forum Plenary.
3 - Discussion: eSafety Forum Plenary meeting 8/11/2006
Juhani Jääskeläinen reviewed the draft agenda for upcoming Plenary meeting. Important
issues will be discussed: the Eurobarometer studies, FP7 research agenda, incentives and
the third eSafety Communication. Commissioner Reding will be present and will give a
key note speech. In the WG’s sessions, next steps in Digital Maps will be discussed, as
well as the new working groups on service oriented architectures and ICT for clean
mobility. The Response 3 project will be discussed, the coordinator from Daimler
Chrysler will give a presentation on reducing market introduction risk through Code of
Practice .
Juhani Jääskeläinen added that the recommendation on HMI will be also presented and
that the Finnish and German Presidencies will present their priorities at the meeting.
The Steering Group agreed that if certain points on the agenda are not confirmed
within 2 weeks, these will be removed and added later as information items.
The agenda was updated with the following:
� Remove Security WG from the agenda.
� ICT for Clean Mobility WG remains in the agenda.
� Keep International Cooperation WG as an information item.
� Digital Maps to remain in the agenda
� The Code of Practice and ESOP on HMI should be put in the same item.
� Service oriented architectures WG remains in the agenda; Michael Nielsen will
provide further comments during the week of 15 October.
� Matti Roine will represent the Finnish Presidency.
André Vits suggested having a small SG meeting right after the Forum Plenary on 8
November.
André Vits informed the SG that eCall will be a topic on the Finnish and German
presidencies agenda. He added that the EC has received a letter from the German
Government in which the Government states to be pleased with the progress on eCall
and will sign the MoU.
� Action:
eSafety Support to send to the eSafety Forum the Working document on
data protection and privacy implications in eCall initiative adopted on 26
September 2006.
124

Catherine Lovell (Department for Transport, UK) reported that the UK is looking into
signing the eCall MoU.
André Vits reported that Commissioner Reding’s cabinet would like to foresee another
signature event soon.
� Action:
eSafety Support to send all Plenary related documentation to the eSafety
Forum one week in advance.
4 – Information Items
4.1 – New European Statement of Principles (ESoP) on HMI
Valérie Moutal reported that the ESOP on HMI is on its way to be adopted. Comments
from DG Enterprise have been received and minor adjustments will be made. The
document will be sent to the EC translation services, and it will be adopted on 27
October.
4.2 – 3 rd eSafety Communication
Juhani Jaaskelainen (European Commission) reported that the Third eSafety
Communication would be adopted in November. It follows the the commitment taken in
the Second eSafety Communication on eCall to produce a status report. It reports also
on the positive report adopted by the European Parliament. The Third Communication
will hopefully be adopted on 8 November and presented at the eSafety Forum Plenary
Meeting.
4.3 – Other items
André Vits informed the SG that a workshop will take place on 5 of June 2007 in
Germany. The theme of the workshop will be on traffic safety in general. Germany gives
high priority to RTTI issues.
Uwe Daniel (Bosch) added that Fritz Bolte (BAST), Heinz Friedrichs, Roland Niggestich
and himself are actively involved in preparing the agenda and contents of this workshop.
The next formal meeting will take place at the end of November.
4.4 – Upcoming Meetings and Events
2 – 3 November – eSafety Observers European Meeting, Stockholm and Helsinki
8 November – Sixth eSafety Forum Plenary Meeting, Brussels
14 November – Implementation Road Map for Dynamic Traffic Management – Vehicle
systems Co-operation Workshop, Brussels
21- 23 November – IST 2006: Strategies for Leadership, Helsinki
5 – AOB
Rui Camolino (ASECAP) stated that ASECAP would be willing to participate in the
Communications WG and SOA WG.
125

Risto Kulmala asked the SG to contribute with information available, such as studies, to
the eSafety Effects database.
André Vits also added that there is need to follow-up on the Spectrum Workshop on
Spectrum Requirements for Road Safety, which was organised earlier this year by the EC.
126

127

Chapter 4 - ESAFETY
OBSERVERS MEETINGS
128

4.1 1 st eSafety Observers Regional meeting (Vigo, Spain)
Date: 15 May 2006
Venue: CTAG, Vigo, Spain
Link:www.esafetysupport.org/en/esafety_activities/esafety_observers/esafety_regional_o
bservers_meeting_vigo_spain_15_may_2006.htm
Objective: Target stakeholders from the Iberian Peninsula in order to involve them
in the eSafety activities. Invited participants include: European Commission,
representatives from Spain and Portuguese government, road and safety
authorities, automotive industry, telecommunications industry, service providers,
user organisations, insurance industry, technology providers, research organisations
and road operators.
4.1.1 Agenda
09.30 – 10.00 Registration and Coffee
10.00 – 10.30 Welcoming Address
Welcome – Dr. Salustiano Mato, Consellería de Innovación,
Industria e Comercio, Xunta de Galicia
Welcome – Mr Luis Moreno, CTAG
Welcome – Mr Francisco Sánchez, CTAG
Foreword to the Regional Meetings – Mr Jacob Bangsgaard,
eSafety Support
10.30 – 11.30 eSafety Initiative
The eSafety Initiative – Mr Francisco Ferreira – European
Commission for Information Society and Media
Status of implementation of eSafety in the EU – Dr. Alessandro
Carrotta, eSafety Support
11.30 – 12.00 Coffee Break and Press Conference
12.00 – 12.45 Spanish Observers report on the eSafety status in Spain
12.45 – 13.30 Lunch
Mr Francisco Sánchez, CTAG
Mr Ramón Vicente Cirilo Gimeno, LISITT – Universidad de
Valencia
13.30 – 15.30 Portuguese and Spanish Stakeholders presentations
Dr. H. Machado Jorge, CRP - Portuguese Road Centre
129

15.30 – 15.45 Coffee Break
Mr Paulo André, Autoestradas do Atlântico
Mr Antonio Lucas, Dirección General de Tráfico (DGT)
Dr. Edouard Rozan, FICOSA
Mr Jesús Monclús, FITSA
Mr Manuel Serrano Matoses, ETRA I+D
Dr. Miguel Ángel Sotelo Vázquez, Department of Electronics,
University of Alcalá
Ms Rosa Cañellas, ITS Systems, RACC
15.45 – 16.15 Discussion: next steps for eSafety in the EU and in the
Iberian Peninsula –
Chairmen: Mr Jacob Bangsgaard and Mr Francisco Ferreira
16.15 – 17.00 CTAG guided tour to their premises
17.00 Closing of the Regional Meeting and adjourn
130

4.1.2 Participants List
Last name First name Organisation E-mail
Achaerandio Alvira José Trabajos Catastrales S.A. jachaerandio@tracasa.es
Aguado Agelet Fernando Universidade de Vigo faguado@tsc.uvigo.es
Aizpurua Antia Jon Joseba GOBIERNO VASCO jaizpurua@trafiko.net
André Paulo Auto-Estradas do Atlântico S.A. pandre@aeatlantico.pt
Arias Arturo Universidade de Vigo aarias@uvigo.es
Bangsgaard Jacob eSafety Support j.bangsgaard@esafetysupport.org
Bruna Rodríguez Fernando SACE Desarrollos Tecnológicosfernando.bruna@sace-sl.es
Vitor Hugo Microprocessador - Sistemas
Caldas
Sampaio e Digitais, S.A.
BRISA, Auto-Estradas de
vitorcaldas@microp.efacec.pt
Camolino Rui
Portugal, S.A. rui.camolino@brisa.pt
Cañellas Rosa RACC rosa.canellas@racc.es
Carrotta Alessandro eSafety Support a.carrotta@esafetysupport.org
Casal Alberto Inova-Consult alberto.casal@inova-consult.com
Casal Xavier MGI-Coutier
Charlón Jaime CTAG
LISITT – Universidad de
jaime.charlon@ctag.com
Cirilo Gimeno Ramón Vicente Valencia ramon.v.cirilo@uv.es
Contreras Jordi CTAG jordi.contreras@ctag.com
Esteban Ramajo Manuel GOBIERNO VASCO iesteban@trafiko.net
Ferreira Francisco EC - DG INFSO francisco.ferreira@cec.eu.int
González Israel Pérez
CEAGA - Clúster de Empresas
de Automoción
de Galicia
Telefónica Investigación y
israel.perez@ceaga.com
González Martínez Rodrigo Desarrollo rodrigo@tid.es
Gutiérrez Javier Inova-Consult javier.gutierrez@inova-consult.com
Huerta Jaime ITS Spain jhuerta@itsspain.com
Inchaurza Elosua Eduardo Azertia einchaurza@azertia.com
Javier Ruiz Francisco AZERTIA fjruiz@azertia.com
Larsson Christian Inova-Consult christian.larsson@inova-consult.com
Lozano Luis PSA Peugeot Citroen
Dirección General de Tráfico
(DGT)/
luismanuel.lozano@mpsa.com
Lucas Antonio University of Valencia antonio.lucas-alba@uv.es
Machado Jorge H. CRP - Portuguese Road Centre hmachadojorge@crp.pt
Mateos Antonio CTAG
Consellería de Innovación,
Industria
e Comercio.
antonio.mateos@ctag.com
Mato Salustiano Xunta de Galicia dxidi@xunta.es
Matoses Manuel Serrano
ETRA INVESTIGACIÓN
Y DESARROLLO S.A. mserrano.etra-id@grupoetra.com
Menduina Martin Enrique TELEFÓNICA I+D efmm@tid.es
Monclús Jesús FITSA Foundation j.monclus@fundacionfitsa.org
Moreno Luis CTAG luis.moreno@ctag.com
Olcoz Serafin FICOSA International
Microprocessador - Sistemas
olcoz@ficosa.com
Oliveira Pedro Digitais, S.A.
ISEL - Instituto Superior de
pedrooliveira@microp.efacec.pt
Osório A. Luís Engenharia de Lisboa aosorio@deetc.isel.ipl.pt

Paul Ana CTAG ana.paul@ctag.com
Pedrosa Alexandre Universidade de Vigo apedrosa@uvigo.es
Pedrosa Gonzálo DALPHI METAL gonzalo.pedrosa@dalphimetal.com
Rodríguez Ferreiro Manuel 112 Center of Galicia mferreiro@xunta.es
Rozán Edouard FICOSA International edouard.rozan@ficosa.com
Ruiz Corella Pilar GOBIERNO VASCO pruiz@trafiko.net
Saccagno Andrea FICOSA International andrea.saccagno@ficosa.com
Sánchez Francisco CTAG francisco.sanchez@ctag.com
Sánchez David CTAG david.sanchez@ctag.com
Silva Irina eSafety Support I.silva@esafetysupport.org
Sotelo Vázquez Miguel Ángel
José Ignacio
Universidad de Alcalá sotelo@depeca.uah.es
Zarzosa
Herrero GMV Sistemas PTM S.A. jherrero@gmv.es
132

4.1.3 Minutes
4.1.3.1 Welcoming Address
Dr Salustiano Mato (Consellería de Innovación, Industria e Comercio, Xunta de
Galicia) opened the meeting by stating that the automotive and security themes are key
themes for the region of Galicia.
Mr Francisco Sánchez (CTAG – Automotive Technological Centre of Galicia)
welcomed the participants to Galicia, to Vigo and to CTAG. ITS is a key field of
competence for CTAG, providing an excellent opportunity for cooperation to accelerate
eSafety research and implementation. For Mr Sánchez, the eSafety Observers Regional
Meeting is an excellent point to share ideas and to know what is happening in eSafety
around Europe. He wished a successful meeting to all the participants.
Mr Jacob Bangsgaard (eSafety Support) thanked CTAG for hosting the meeting at
their premises and stated that the European Commission and eSafety Support were very
pleased to have been invited. The objective of the regional meetings is to find what the
priorities are in the European regions and help with eSafety implementation. There is
difficulty in stakeholders’ cooperation. Without such cooperation, European countries
cannot make advanced road safety work. Slow deployment means that more people are
killed on the roads. Areas like eCall and RTTI are a priority. ESC already exists in the
market however it is not used yet in all EU countries. Mr Bangsgaard encouraged the
participants to use eSafety Support as a support platform.
4.1.3.2 eSafety Initiative
Mr Francisco Ferreira (European Commission) made a presentation about the
eSafety initiative and the Intelligent Car Initiative. Mr Ferreira pointed out that the
number of road fatalities in Europe is still very high. The eSafety Forum Working
Groups’ results were presented as well as the conclusions of the Fifth eSafety Forum
Plenary Meeting. The eCall deployment was a major highlight of the presentation. Mr
Ferreira presented the actions taken by the European Commission and the eCall Driving
Group. There was also focus on the FP7 and the IST Strategic Objective “Mobility”. The
presentation concluded with the viewing of the i2010 Intelligent Car Initiative Launching
Event video.
Dr Alessandro Carrotta (eSafety Support) presented the eSafety Status in the EU.
The presentation’s topics were: eSafety Support introduction, eSafety implementation
status in the EU and Implementation Road Map; and surveying eSafety in the Member
States. Dr Carrotta showed to the audience a table on eSafety implementation in the EU,
which depicts that a great deal still has to be done in the Member States.
Mr Bangsgaard informed the participants about the official launch of the eSafety
Communication Platform at the i2010 High Level Workshop in Helsinki (27 – 28
September).
A press conference took place with eSafety Support, CTAG (Automotive Technological
Centre of Galicia) and the Galician Council for Innovation, Industry and Commerce. Mr
Bangsgaard explained to the local and specialised press that “the eSafety initiative is a
project that requires the involvement of all audiences and has the objective of making the
133

public aware of the importance of incorporating safety systems in the vehicles in order to
reduce the number of fatal victims in accidents”.
4.1.3.3 Spanish Observers report on the eSafety status in Spain
Mr Francisco Sánchez (CTAG) presentation focused on the general overview on
eSafety stakeholders in Spain and CTAG eSafety related activities.
Mr Ramón Cirilo (LISITT, Universidad de Valencia) presented the state of the art
in Spain from the DGT (General Directorate for Traffic) perspective. He focused on
Real-Time Traffic Information (the RDS-TMC status and DATEX/DATEX2) and
Accident Causation Data and RTTI (project ARENA).
During the Questions & Answers period, Mr Sánchez asked the European Commission
if there was going to be regulation to make compulsory the use of some of the eSafety
systems.
Mr Ferreira explained that such a process is difficult since directives have to be agreed
by the Council. This may block implementation. The European Commission would
rather follow the voluntary approach. If this is not possible then the European
Commission will issue directives. For this reason, the European Commission highly
supports dissemination activities towards implementation.
Mr Serafin Olcoz (FICOSA) asked how eCall would be implemented by 2010 if most
of the stakeholders still had to agree on it.
Mr Ferreira answered that important stakeholders would have to sign the eCall
Memorandum of Understanding (MoU) by the end of the year. The schedule will not be
extended. Pressure will be put specially on the PSAP’s side. The car industry (ACEA) has
signed. The only problem is that the car industry does not want to invest money yet.
Mr Bangsgaard noted that, in the meantime, some car manufacturers have offered a
solution to use eCall: the use of a private service provider. What has to be agreed now is
the Minimum Set of Data (MSD). Then the only change in the future will be to send the
MSD to the PSAPs and not the private service providers.
Mr Ferreira noted that the process of getting a government to sign the MoU is long. He
confessed that he was confident that the Member States would sign the MoU.
Mr Bangsgaard reminded that some countries have already implemented eCall but have
not signed the eCall MoU.
4.1.3.4 Portuguese and Spanish Stakeholders presentations
Prof. H. Machado Jorge (CRP - Portuguese Road Centre) presented the Portuguese
Road Centre’s role.
He stated that there have been improvements in road safety in Portugal but these have
been somewhat minor.
134

Prof. Machado Jorge stressed the need to act upon driver’s behaviour by stiffening
penalties in respect of the legislation. He also underlined the need of infrastructure
upgrading.
Prof. Machado Jorge outlined the CRP initiatives, namely:
- the organisation of the 1st Road Safety Auditors Course,
- the registration of the “ITS Portugal” mark and
- the establishment of the “ITS Portugal Convention”.
Prof. Machado Jorge introduced the objectives of the Portuguese Road Centre, namely:
- To strengthen the ‘human factor’ in road safety - the “driver ‘angle’” of the
“driver / vehicle / infrastructure triangle”.
- To foster the adoption of safety-enhancing in-vehicle technology (“black boxes”,
e.g.) and road-vehicle real-time communication systems.
- To promote best available technology and contribute to Portuguese entities
participation in the technology development effort.
Prof. Machado Jorge concluded by stressing the problem of age and the use of
technology and underlying the fact that Portugal is against regulation related to eSafety
systems.
Mr Paulo André (Autoestradas do Atlântico) made a presentation on the ARMAS
(Active Road Management Assisted by Satellite) project.
ARMAS aims at transforming the transport infrastructure (roads, bridges, tunnels, urban
areas) into safer and more customer-friendly environments, by:
- improving Safety,
- increasing Dynamic Traffic Management capabilities and
- providing Electronic Fee Collection mechanisms;
The system is based on the use of the following technologies:
- GNSS, namely GPS and EGNOS,
- CN, namely GSM and GPRS and
- DSRC (Dedicated Short Range Communications) technology.
Research solutions were presented on how to increase road safety and to improve traffic
management.
Mr André emphasised two main concerns:
- The need to find market penetration for the research being made and
- The fact that EC funding is being doubled since funding is being given to
research projects with the same objectives.
More information about this project can be found at this link: http://armasII.skysoft.pt.
Mr Antonio Lucas, DGT (Dirección General de Tráfico) presented “Between ITS
and eSafety: some thoughts on the last chain”.
Mr Lucas presented results of the DGT and INTRAS SIMVA project, which had as
objective to:
- Analyse VMS displays homogeneity
135

- Build a VMS standard catalogue
DGT will in the immediate future work on RTTI, HMI, Accident Causation Analysis,
Dynamic Traffic Management (VMS), Speed Control and eCall.
Dr Edouard Rozan (FICOSA International) made a presentation on FICOSA
International activities. FICOSA is present in 18 different countries and in 3 countries.
Its business units work on: rear-view systems, command and control systems, plastics
and electrical systems, advanced antennas systems, commercial vehicles systems and
comp., and security and locks systems. FICOSA has access to all major car
manufacturers. The technology developed by FICOSA is used for active and passive
safety.
Mr Jesús Monclús (FITSA Foundation) presented “eSafety in Spain, past and future
(an update on the current status)”. FITSA is a non-profit foundation supported by public
and private authorities. FITSA Foundation is currently conducting a paper on “eSafety
and Spain” which has the objective of increasing the Spanish participation (quantitatively
and qualitatively) in eSafety. This study will be available from late June-July 2006.
Mr Manuel Serrano Matoses (ETRA Investigación y Desarollo S.A.) overviewed
the TRACKSS (Technologies for Road Advanced Cooperative Knowledge Sharing
Sensors) project. Its strategic objective was the development of new systems for
cooperative sensing and predicting flow, infrastructure and environmental conditions
surrounding traffic, with a view to improve road transport operations safety and
efficiency.
Dr Miguel Ángel Sotelo Vázquez (Department of Electronics, University of
Alcalá) is a coordinator of ITS programmes and projects. He outlined the eSafety related
activities conducted by the University of Alcalá. The presentation’s outline was: Research
Activities, UAH Road Safety Lectureship, Certificate Issuing and Research Lines.
Concerning the Road Safety Lectureship, the University of Alcalá has made an agreement
with the Regional Government of Madrid Community to conduct the following
activities:
- State of the Art and Prospective Studies
- Adaptive Velocity Systems (May 2006)
- Feasibility Analyses
- Research Projects (Causal Research)
- Road Safety Education
- Courses
- Road Safety Auditor – 2005
The University of Alcalá’s research lines are:
- Assisted Road Driving
o Lane Departure Warning
o Vehicle detection
� Adaptive Cruise Control
� Adaptive Light Control
� Blind Spot Detection
o Pedestrian detection
� Accident avoidance
� Mitigation of collision effects
136

o Traffic signs detection
o Global localization enhancement
o Driver monitoring
o Driver recognition
o Detection of occupant head position
- Autonomous Navigation
o Autonomous driving
o Lane keeping
Future research directions will be:
- ITS applications in urban and road infrastructure
o Traffic monitoring
o Intelligent traffic signaling
o Incident detection
Ms Rosa Canellas (RACC) outlined the E-Merge project, which aimed at: creating an
agreed technical, operational and business solution for pan-European vehicle eCall
services available to all vehicle users, and testing and validating this solution on several
trial sites throughout Europe.
The key results of the E-Merge project were:
- State of the Art study
- User requirement study
- Architecture of the E-Call system
- System specifications
- Vehicle system prototypes
- E-Call service centre system prototypes
- PSAP system prototypes
- Performed trials and results
- Compiled evaluation results
The next steps for the concluded E-Merge project will be to:
- Promote the MoU signature
o EU Member States
o Car manufacturers
o Telecom Operators
o Services Providers
- Ensure Technology Deployment
o eCall in-vehicle system integrated in the car by OEM
o Telecommunications protocol needs to be adapted to get data transfer
integrated with 112 voice call
o 112 PSAPs need unified technology adaptation, training, resources..
- Start pre-launch field tests with the eCall concept in Spain
4.1.3.5 Discussion: next steps for safety in the EU and in the Iberian
Peninsula
The discussion centred mostly on eCall implementation in Spain. Mr Ferreira stated that
eCall has a great potential to save lives. eCall can mitigate consequences of accidents. He
also stressed that people who have an interest in eCall are not necessarily the people who
will benefit from it.
137

Mr Bangsgaard highlighted the fact that society pays a lot today for accidents, delays
and infrastructure. Supporting eCall will make society gain money.
Mr Jesús Monclús (FITSA) stressed that Spain cannot sign the eCall MoU due to the
transfer of competences to the regions.
Mr Manuel Rodríguez Ferreiro (112 Centre of Galicia) noted that costs could come
from private companies. There is the idea that eCall could be privatised.
4.1.3.6 Conclusions
Mr Bangsgaard presented the conclusions of the meeting. He was pleased to see that
there is a lot of eSafety activity in the Iberian Peninsula and asked the participants to
share more information with Brussels. He concluded by stating that the eSafety
stakeholders should focus more on disseminating information to the end user.
The conclusions were:
1. Increased interest throughout the last years for eSafety development in Spain and
Portugal;
2. Important eSafety progress made in Galicia (namely CTAG) and other regions of
Spain;
3. Interest from the press and the end users, which is key to create the business
case;
4. Priority areas in line with the rest of Europe for areas like eCall, RTTI, HMI,
standardisation, data exchange, accident causation, training, ISA;
5. Improvements have been made on road safety in Portugal, mainly as a result of
road improvements;
6. Work done on defining architecture for OBU and the business case could be
found in the EFC area;
7. Cross fertilisation is important to avoid duplication of work in Europe;
8. Active participation from Spain in the eSafety Forum activities and European
R&D;
9. Deployment takes time and so does the change in human behaviour;
10. Benchmarking study on the Spanish eSafety effort;
11. Streamlining the messages is important to avoid distraction rather than assisting;
12. Hardware challenges will follow the eSafety development – providers need to be
involved from the beginning;
13. eCall is a high priority, but when will we get it;
14. Field test should be launched in Spain.
The agenda, list of participants and presentations can be found at the following link:
http://www.esafetysupport.org/en/esafety_activities/esafety_observers/esafety_regiona
l_observers_meeting_vigo_spain_15_may_2006.htm
138

4.2 2 nd eSafety Regional Observers Meeting (Göteborg, Sweden)
Date: 12 June 2006
Venue: At the premises of the TRA conference - Transport Research Arena Europe
2006, Gothenburg, Sweden.
Link:www.esafetysupport.org/en/esafety_activities/esafety_observers/esafety_observers
_regional_meeting_gothenburg_sweden_15_june_2006.htm
Objective: The objective was to bring together eSafety stakeholders from Denmark,
Finland, Norway, and Sweden. In order to have a thorough report on eSafety
activities in the concerned States.
4.2.1 Agenda
10.30 – 10.40 Welcoming Address
Foreword to the Regional Meetings – Mr Jacob Bangsgaard,
eSafety Support
10.40 – 11.20 eSafety Initiative
The eSafety Initiative Strategic Overview – Mr Francisco Ferreira
– European Commission for Information Society and Media
The eSafety Priorities and the Communication Platform – Dr.
Alessandro Carrotta, eSafety Support
11.20 – 12.15 Regional Observers report on the eSafety status
Mr Risto Öörni, VTT, Finland
Ms Eva Boëthius, Swedish Road Administration
Mr Björn Stafbom, Swedish Road Administration
12.15 – 13.00 Lunch (Restaurant Incontro)
13.00 – 14.00 Regional Stakeholders presentations and debate
Mr Martin Hellung-Larsen, Danish Road Safety and Transport Agency
Mr Henrik Forsgren, Volvo Cars
Mr Per Adamsson, Volvo Truck Corporation
14.00 – 14.15 Closing Remarks and next steps

4.2.2 Participants List
Last name First name Organisation
e-Mail
Adamsson Per Volvo Truck Corporation per.adamsson@volvo.com
Avedal Claes Volvo 3P Product Planning claes.avedal@volvo.com
BANGSGAARD Jacob eSafety Support j.bangsgaard@esafetysupport.org
Beate Budalen
Hansen Anne
Björklund Per
Norwegian Public Roads
Administration abbuha@vegvesen.no
Ministry of Industry, Employment
and Communications per.bjorklund@industry.ministry.se
Boëthius Eva SRA eva.boethius@vv.se
CARROTTA Alessandro eSafety Support a.carrotta@esafetysupport.org
Coulon Cantuer Myriam European Commission myriam.coulon-cantuer@cec.eu.int
Darin Fredrik Mitsubishi Electric fredrik@melcogot.com
Darin Lars
Ministry of Industry, Employment
and Communications lars.darin@industry.ministry.se
Falkås Helén Saab Automobile AB Helen.Falkas@se.saab.com
FERREIRA Francisco European Commission francisco.ferreira@cec.eu.int
Forsberg Mats Autoliv mats.forsberg@autoliv.com
Forsgren Henrik Volvo Cars hforsgre@volvocars.com
Geiselhart Greg Telematics Valley greg@telematicsvalley.org
Hellung-Larsen Martin
Danish Road Safety and
Transport Agency mhl@fstyr.dk
Landt Harald WirelessCar Harald.Landt@WirelessCar.com]
Löwenadler Lars-Göran Volvo Trucks lars-goran.lowenadler@volvo.com
Odenmo Jan Autoliv jan.odenmo@autoliv.com
Öörni Risto VTT risto.oorni@vtt.fi
SILVA Irina eSafety Support I.silva@esafetysupport.org
Stafbom Björn SRA bjorn.stafbom@vv.se
Vits André European Commission andre.vits@cec.eu.int
Wallsten Boris Systemteknik Oú - Tallinn, Estonia boris.systek@home.se
140

4.2.3 Minutes
4.2.3.1 Welcoming Address
Mr. Lars Darin (Ministry of Industry, Employment and Communications,
Sweden) opened the meeting by welcoming the participants.
4.2.3.2 eSafety Initiative
Mr. Francisco Ferreira (European Commission) gave a Strategic Overview of the
eSafety initiative.
Mr. Ferreira started his presentation by showing statistics on the number fatalities on
Europe’s roads. The situation is bleak but the numbers are getting better. The relative
number of fatalities in Scandinavia is lower than in the rest of Europe. He then followed
to explain the structure of the Intelligent Car Initiative with focus on the work by each
pillar. In what regards pillar number 1 – The eSafety Initiative, the eSafety Forum will
focus on its next Plenary Meeting on incentives, cost-benefit, and spectrum issues. The
FP7 and its consultation process were overviewed by Mr Ferreira. The FP7
COOPERATION Programme has as theme: ICT – Challenge 6: “Mobility”.
Mr. Lars-Göran Löwenadler (Volvo Trucks) commented that there is much focus on
safety systems. He would like to see more interaction between the vehicle and the road
environment.
Mr. Ferreira answered that some EC projects are dealing with cooperative systems. He
added that Volvo Trucks is welcome to make proposals to the eSafety Forum on this
topic.
Mr. André Vits (European Commission) added that safety activity does not only
concern the car. Cooperative systems will bring a wider dimension. A number of projects
have started to work on this. The next programme should concern the non-discussed
areas.
Mr. Martin Hellung-Larsen (Danish Road Safety and Transport Agency) asked
whether the European Parliament recommended incentives for the deployment of
eSafety systems.
Mr. Jacob Bangsgaard (eSafety Support) stated that there will be cooperation with
insurance companies when drivers comply with the rules. Incentives should be on a
European level in order to avoid market distortions.
Mr. Henrik Forsgren (Volvo Cars) commented that it should be a benefit for society
to invest 500 Euros per car because of the economic transfers provoked by this
investment.
Mr. Björn Stafbom (SRA) underlined that there should be no increase value of the car
when more safety systems are implemented. A more general level should be found in
order to implement these systems.
141

Mr. Vits stressed the need to keep eCall in the political agenda to help progress in
implementation. The issue of business case will be discussed at another level.
Mr. Greg Geiselhart (Telematics Valley) asked how the stakeholders would proceed
without a business case.
Mr. Ferreira answered that if Member States sign the eCall Memorandum of
Understanding (MoU) and upgrade their PSAPs, the car manufacturers will introduce the
technology.
Mr. Geiselhart asked whether car manufacturers are really willing to introduce this
system.
Mr. Forsgren mentioned the fact that Volvo has already implemented “on Call”. Addon
systems to the Volvo “on Call” bring additional costs, which moves away from the
idea of eCall for all.
Dr. Alessandro Carrotta (eSafety Support) presented the eSafety Priorities and the
Communication Platform.
Dr. Carrotta focused on eSafety Support’s role, the eSafety Communication Platform and
Surveying eSafety in the Member States. The Communication Platform resulted from the
work of the User Outreach Working Group. The Platform aims at broadening the
communication work on eSafety within a “non-competitive” framework. The eSafety
Communication Platform will develop cooperation at the non-competitive level. Its goal
will not be the marketing of particular products but making the public aware of eSafety
systems in general, extend their knowledge about them and create a solid demand for
eSafety products. The first project will be a pilot campaign on ESC. Dr. Carrotta finalised
his presentation by mentioning the survey being conducted by the Implementation Road
Map WG which has as objective to find out for the current status of the deployment of
the priority systems in European countries.
Mr. Lars-Göran Löwenadler (Volvo Trucks) asked whether there is a risk that people
overuse ESC.
Mr. Vits answered that ESC provides a lot of benefits. The Communication Platform
will look at a way to create a single message to the citizen. He added that the Platform
will be a private type of activity.
4.2.3.3 Regional Observers report on the eSafety status
Mr. Risto Öörni (VTT, Finland) gave an overview of the eSafety status in Finland.
His presentation focused on eCall, RTTI and R&D through the AINO programme.
AINO is a R&D Programme on Real-Time Transport Information (2004-2007). It deals
with the collection, management and exploitation of real-time traffic-related information
in domains of:
o public transport information
o goods transport information
o network status information
o driver support
142

In what concerns eCall, Finland has conducted a study on the impacts of an automatic
emergency call system on accident consequences. It is based on in-depth accident
investigation team reports and estimated that fatalities would have been avoided and
injuries would have been less severe due to eCall.
The proposal for future eSafety activities in Finland include:
o Electronic identification of all vehicles and transport units via passive RFID
o Generic telematics platform to all vehicles (eCall, danger warnings, speed alert,
FCD, RUC support, etc.)
o Public transport route planning: inclusion of real-time data, pedestrian and
bicycle routes, accessibility
o Wireless LAN to all long-distance terminals and public transport vehicles
o National goods transport actors’ information system
o National solutions for traffic management at ports, terminals and border
crossings
o Electronic bill of lading
o Coordinates as part of address data
Ms. Eva Boëthius (Swedish Road Administration) gave an overview of the eSafety
Status in Sweden.
The presentation focused on the Swedish National ITS Strategy for 2006 – 2009. The
focus areas are to:
1. Improve road safety
2. Facilitate efficient commuting
3. Support more efficient commercial transports
4. Provide quality-assured road and traffic data
5. Develop efficiency and reliability in the work on ITS
New initiatives by SRA include the development of the Test Site Sweden – National ITS
Test and Demonstration Area near Gothenburg, the Road and Vehicle Safety Centre
(based in Chalmers) and organisation of the ITS World Congress 2009 in Stockholm.
The main focus of the Test Site is not yet defined and it will probably be linked to the
FP7. It will address projects related to IVSS – Intelligent Vehicle Safety Systems.
Mr. Lars Darin (Ministry of Industry, Employment and Communications,
Sweden) added that the Test and Demonstration Area will be open to national and
international projects; and it can include cars as well as trucks.
Mr. Björn Stafbom (Swedish Road Administration) made a presentation on Market
driven implementation.
In his presentation Mr. Stafbom remarked that the statement “eSafety does not sell” is no
longer true. There has been increase in sales of ESC in Sweden. The idea that “Industry
does not deliver until they are forced by regulation” is no longer true, at least not
generally. Most new systems are not regulated and most manufacturers have internal
targets beyond the regulated level. There are some aspects, like pedestrian protection,
that are not developing as fast.
143

The main conclusions from Mr. Stafbom’s presentation were:
o Competition and customer satisfaction are the strong motivators for safety –
apart from regulation
o Society must develop more effective ways to drive development
o Euro-NCAP has been effective but must be developed further to stimulate
innovation
o Industry should be stimulated to demonstrate by scientific methods the impact of
innovations
o Customers are not individuals only, fleet buyers are in majority in many countries
4.2.3.4 Regional Stakeholders presentations and debate
Mr. Martin Hellung-Larsen (Danish Road Safety and Transport Agency) gave an
overview of the eSafety Status in Denmark.
The main priority eSafety systems in Denmark are:
o ESP: reg. tax incentive. More than half of the new passenger cars being fitted
with ESP. Should be made compulsory as soon as possible.
o Blind spot monitoring: fitted on some cars but may do even more good on
trucks.
o Adaptive head lights: no specific measures.
o Obstacle & collision warning: promising but only just arriving on the market.
Possible req. for road trains/modular combinations.
o Lane departure warning: no specific measures but tested on coaches.
o eCall: discussions taking place nationally. Limited enthusiasm so far.
o Extended environmental information: no experiences.
o RTTI: used for public broadcasts.
o Speed alert: ongoing projects.
o Dynamic traffic management: in use on M3 extension around Copenhagen.
Recent and ongoing eSafety projects in Denmark include:
o Black box field trial
o Intelligent Speed Adaptation project in Northern Jutland (aimed at young drivers)
o Intelligent Speed Adaptation in Børkop (aimed at light commercial vehicles)
Mr. Hellung-Larsen commented that the use of tax incentives is proving to be efficient
in terms of implementation of eSafety systems in Denmark.
A discussion took place on the application of speed adaptation in Denmark. Mr.
Bangsgaard commented that in response to the higher speed limit, enforcement has
also increased. In consequence the average speed and the number of road accidents are
going down.
Mr. André Vits (European Commission) asked whether motorways in Denmark have
automatic speeding enforcement.
Mr. Hellung-Larsen answered that there is no automatic speeding ticketing.
144

Mr. Björn Stafbom (Swedish Road Administration) made an observation concerning
the occurrence of the “Kangaroo effect”: drivers reduce the speed when they know
where speed cameras are located.
Mr. Henrik Forsgren (Volvo Cars) made a presentation on eSafety activities by Volvo
Car Corporation centring on:
o Focus in Sweden on 2007
- Seat Belts
- Sober Driving
- Speeding
o TSS – Test Site Sweden
o Volvo’s Activities
The main eSafety activities have been related to:
o Accident Data
o eCall / On Call
o Advanced Safety Systems
- Collision Mitigation; now in production (S80).
- Collision Avoidance
- Driver Alert
Volvo has been conducting investigations on accidents with Volvo cars, with the
intention of creating accident databases. In-depth studies have been made as well as a
statistical database.
Mr. Per Adamsson (Volvo Truck Corporation) presented Safety & Security
Services at Volvo Trucks.
Volvo Trucks has been developing telematics since 1986 with the objective of promoting
productivity, vehicle uptime, safety, security and convenience of their vehicles.
The main eSafety issues to address for Volvo Trucks are:
o Focus on communication protocols on how information is exchanged– not the
in-vehicle hardware solution.
o Work close with the end-customers, not doing the same mistakes as in the digital
tacho
o By sharing the in-vehicle platform with other services will help to improve
transport efficiency in Europe for commercial road transports – avoid the toll
collect scenario with one HW device for one service (the toll collect hardware not
approved for ADR transports)
o Volvo prefers integrated in-vehicle solutions from factory & aftermarket to
secure usability, availability over long lifetimes
o Additional information received from sensors regarding information of the goods
is required, type of goods, volumes, temperature, roll-over etc.
Mr. Adamsson mentioned that Volvo Trucks focuses on research projects on IVSS and
will put effort more into programmes as soon as they can.
Mr. Risto Öörni (VTT, Finland) asked whether it is possible to update the integrated
systems in the Volvo trucks.
145

Mr. Adamsson answered that Volvo Trucks does not develop short-term interfaces; it
develops open interfaces. It uses USB and Internet in order to keep it simple. He also
mentioned that big fleets invest more in communications than in safety. Small fleets
(average 5 trucks per fleet) may invest more in safety.
4.2.3.5 Closing Remarks and next steps
Mr. Jacob Bangsgaard (eSafety Support) presented the meeting’s conclusions:
o Road casualties must be understood as people dying, not as figures like 41.325.
o Cooperative systems demand closer links between stakeholders. Promising results
will be impossible to obtain without close cooperation between the
infrastructure, the system operators, the vehicles, and the users.
o The safety situation in Scandinavia is more advanced than in the rest of Europe.
o There are also serious problems, concerning the business case and knowledge of
the safety systems.
o The question “how to make people understand eSafety?” must be addressed. Do
people want an “eSafety” car?
o There is a need to make people aware of the systems and statistics.
o There is a need to keep eSafety on the political agenda.
o The following question should be addressed: how to create cooperation between
the Nordic countries and between these countries and the rest of the European
Union?
o There is a need to get the information/material for the eSafety systems and
contributions from participants.
Mr. Greg Geiselhart (Telematics Valley) noted that public awareness is severely
lacking in Europe, both on the political and private sides.
Mr. Bangsgaard answered that the Communication Platform will create this awareness.
FIA Foundation will lead the Platform.
Mr. Jan Odenmo (Autoliv) explained the success of eSafety systems in the USA by a
cultural difference. American people are more used to paying for services.
Mr. Bangsgaard concluded the meeting by thanking the hosts and the participants.
The agenda, list of participants and presentations can be found at the following link:
http://www.esafetysupport.org/en/esafety_activities/esafety_observers/esafety_observe
rs_regional_meeting_gothenburg_sweden_15_june_2006.htm
146

147

4.3 3 rd eSafety Observers Regional Meeting (Turin, Italy)
Date: 18 September 2006
Venue: Centro Ricerche FIAT, Turin, Italy
Link:www.esafetysupport.org/en/esafety_activities/esafety_observers/third_esafety_re
gional_observers_meeting_turin_italy_18_september_2006.htm
Objective: Target stakeholders from Austria, Italy and Southern Germany in order
to disseminate last eSafety results and involve them in the eSafety activities.
Invited participants included: European Commission, representatives from Italian
government, road and safety authorities, automotive industry,
telecommunications industry, service providers, user organisations, insurance
industry, technology providers, research organisations and road operators.
4.3.1 Agenda
09.30 – 10.00 Registration and Coffee
10.00 – 10.30 Welcome and Key Notes
Welcome to Centro Ricerche Fiat
Paola Carrea, Centro Ricerche Fiat
Key notes from the Italian Government
Ciro Esposito, Department for Innovation and Technologies
Presidency of the Italian Council of Ministers
Foreword to the Regional Meetings
Jacob Bangsgaard, eSafety Support
10.30 – 11.30 eSafety Initiative
Status and priorities of the eSafety initiative
Juhani Jääskeläinen, European Commission for Information
Society and Media
Status of implementation of eSafety in the EU
Alessandro Carrotta, eSafety Support
11.30 – 11.45 Coffee Break
The relevance of the eSafety initiative for OEMs
Paola Carrea , Centro Ricerche Fiat
11.45 – 12.45 National Observers report on the eSafety status
Moderator: Alessandro Carrotta, eSafety Support

12.45 – 13.45 Lunch
Alexander Frötscher, Austria Tech, Austria
Francesco Mazzone,TTS Italia, ACI, Italy
Frank Frischeisen, Autobahndirektion Südbayern, Southern
Germany
13.45 – 15.00 Austrian, Italian and Southern German Stakeholders
presentations – PART I
15.00 – 15.15 Coffee Break
Moderator: Luisa Andreone, Centro Ricerche Fiat
The COMeSafety Specific Support Action
Rudolf Mietzner, Softlab GmbH, Germany
The SAFESPOT Integrated Project
Roberto Brignolo, CRF, Italy
The CVIS Integrated Project
Gino Franco, MIZAR, Italy
The COOPERS Integrated Project:
“COOPERS - consequences of eCall service on European
motorways”
Alexander Frötscher, Austria Tech, Austria
Integrated Safety
Andreas Teuner, DELPHI Electronics & Safety,
Germany
15.15 – 16.30 Austrian, Italian and Southern German Stakeholders
presentations – PART II
Moderator: Alessandro Carrotta, eSafety Support
VisLab research activities on vehicle perception
Massimo Bertozzi, University of Parma, Italy
Human-Machine Interaction for in-vehicle safety, research
achievements and perspectives
Alessandro De Gloria, University of Genoa, Italy
eSafety deployment from Marketing perspective
Walter Hagleitner, ADAS Management Consulting,
Austria
149

RF-based Communication and Localisation for eSafety-
Applications
Axel Sikora, Steinbeis Research Institute Wireless
Communication
Aktiv - Cooperative Systems in Germany
Michael Ortgiese, PTV AG Karlsruhe
16.30 – 16.50 Discussion: next steps for eSafety in the EU and in Austria,
Italy and Southern Germany
Moderators: Jacob Bangsgaard, eSafety Support
Juhani Jääskeläinen, European Commission
16.50 Closing of the Regional Meeting and adjourn
16.50 – 17.45 Centro Ricerche Fiat guided tour to eSafety activities
150

4.3.2 List of Participants
Last Name First Name Organisation
ALESSANDRETTI Giancarlo CRF
ANDREONE LUISA CRF
ANNONI MARCO TELECOM Italia
Bandinelli Matteo University of Firenze
BANGSGAARD Jacob eSafety Support
Benzo Riccardo Faber Software
BERTINO MAURA FATA DTS
Bertozzi Massimo University of Parma
Bianconi Maria Paola CRF
BORZI AUGUSTO Sinelec
BRIGNOLO Roberto CRF
Brusaglino Giampiero ATA
BURZIO Gianfranco CRF
CARREA PAOLA CRF
CARROTTA Alessandro eSafety Support
CONDRO Marco CRF
DAMIANI Sergio CRF
De Gloria Alessandro Università di Genova
De Russis Cosimo ALTRAN - CIS S.p.A.
DEREGIBUS Enrica CRF
DI GIUSTO NEVIO CRF
Eichberger Arno Magna-Steyr
Ernst Gabriele Federal Ministry of Transport, Building and Housing
Eschler Johannes Robert Bosch GmbH
Esposito Ciro Presidenza del Consiglio Dei Ministri
FARANDA CORDELLA Giuseppe CRF
Fisanotti Giovanni IVECO
FRANCO GINO MIZAR Automazione
Frischeisen Frank Autobahndirektion Südbayern
Froetscher Alexander Austriatech
GAIDO Massimo FIAT Auto Italy
GAMMARIELLO Giuseppe Innovazione Italia S.p.A.
GIUSTI Fabrizio Innovazione Italia
Hagleitner Walter ADAS_Management_Consulting
Jääskelainen Juhani European Commission
Ketter Wolfgang Robert Bosch GmbH
151

KOOSS Dieter University Karlsruhe
Lauletta Roberto DIBE
Lemessi Giuseppe ACI Global
Liberto Carlo CRF
Mainero Stefano WSP Group
Margarone Massimiliano DIBE
MARTINI Stefania CRF
MAURO Marco CRF
MAURO VITO MIZAR Automazione
MAZZONE FRANCESCO
TTS Italia
Automobile Club d'Italia
Mietzner Rudolf Softlab GmbH, Germany
MIGLIETTA Maurizio CRF
Montanari Roberto Università di Modena e Reggio Emilia
MORELLO EUGENIO CSST
Moretti Lino Siemens S.p.A.
Mortarapiero Piero Agnetti Marelli
Ortgiese Michael PTV AG Karlsruhe / Germany
Car2Car Communication Consortium / EFKON
P. Schalk Andy
AG
Pellegrino Matteo DIBE
Picerno Luciano Magneti Marelli Sistemi Elettronici
Primavera Ludovica DIBE
PROVERA Michele CRF
RAVIGLIONE Cesare ISMB Istituto Superiore Mario Boella
Santucci Carlo ELEM Group
SAROLDI Andrea CRF
Steinbeis Research Institute Wireless
SIKORA Axel
Communication
SILVA Irina eSafety Support
SINCHETTO Mauro IVECO
TEUNER Andreas DELPHI Electronics & Safety
TIMOSSI GIANMARIA Magneti Marelli sistemi elettronici
TOLA Roberto CRF
Ucelli Giuliana Informatica Trentina s.p.a.
Vernacchia Francesco CRF
Voss Thomas ZF Friedrichshafen AG
Weiss von Trostprugg Alexander ALTEA EUROPE
ZANGHERATI Silvia CRF
ZUCCOTTI Saverio CRF
152

4.3.3 Minutes
4.3.3.1 Welcome and Key Notes
The Third eSafety Support Regional Observers Meeting was opened by Ms Paola Carrea
(CRF). Ms Carrea thanked the presence of the participants and underlined that this was a
good opportunity to exchange experiences. Ms Carrea gave a presentation on the FIAT
Group and CRF.
Mr Ciro Esposito’s (Department for Innovation and Technologies Presidency of the
Italian Council of Ministers) presentation focused on the regulatory environment
concerning the application of 112 as well as the Italian Government activities on E112.
Mr Esposito emphasised that Italy is committed to continue with the activities linked to
E112 and eCall implementation.
Mr Jacob Bangsgaard (eSafety Support) thanked CRF for hosting the meeting and
explained that the objective of the regional meetings is to find what the priorities are in
the European regions and help with eSafety implementation.
4.3.3.2 eSafety Initiative
Status and priorities of the eSafety initiative, Mr Juhani Jääskeläinen, European
Commission for Information Society and Media
Mr Jääskeläinen gave an overview of the European Commission’s eSafety related
activities. eSafety is now part of the Intelligent Car Initiative as one of the three pillars.
The eSafety Forum aims at removing the bottlenecks to market penetration of eSafety
through consensus building. Mr Jääskeläinen then focused on research and development
activities (the second pillar). The third pillar was also mentioned, it deals with user
awareness. A successful event was organised in February 2006: the launch of the
Intelligent Car Initiative. User awareness activities will continue under the work of the
eSafety Communication Platform. Its first major campaign will be on ESC. The EC will
play the role of observer.
The next topic was on eCall. The EC is committed to eCall and will continue to look for
further evidence of its benefits. The annual costs and benefits of eCall were presented.
The FP7 programme was presented to the participants. Its’ focus will be on
“Cooperation” – Collaborative Research Themes.
eSafety status in the EU, Dr Alessandro Carrotta, eSafety Support
The activities of eSafety Support were presented namely the project website and the
eSafety effects database. Participants were asked to contribute with studies to the
database.
The table on eSafety Implementation in the EU was presented. It is being updated with
information provided by participants of eSafety Observers Regional Meetings. Dr
Carrotta followed on to present national eSafety activities as well as international
activities such as cooperation activities with India.
The participants were requested to fill the Implementation Road Map survey and eSafety
Support questionnaire.
153

The relevance of the eSafety initiative for OEMs, Ms Paola Carrea, CRF
The research activities of CRF are driven mainly by European policies, the market and
legislation. The key challenges to CRF’s R&D activities are: risk of system complexity,
components’ different life cycles and risk of product liability. A matrix of cooperation
should be envisaged for a sustainable deployment of vehicle systems.
4.3.3.3 National Observers report on the eSafety status
eSafety status in Austria, Mr Alexander Frötscher, Austria Tech
Austria Tech is a tool of the Ministry of Transport, Innovation and Technology
(BMVIT). Austria Tech is involved in European R&D projects such as COOPERS and
EUDDplus.
Mr Frötscher reported on the public authorities’ involvement in E112 activities, namely
the Ministry of Transport, Innovation and Technology and the Ministry of Interior.
A pilot project for E112 is underway in Austria to test the communication parameters
and the necessary organisational structure for future introduction of an efficient E112.
More information can be found on www.e-call.at/.
eSafety status in Italy, Mr Francesco Mazzone, ACI and TTS Italia
The presentation focused on road safety figures and policies, eSafety status in Italy and
future steps.
Despite the decrease in the number of fatalities in Italy, the number remains high. Italy’s
road safety policies focus on two aspects: policy related to human behaviour which has
included the revision of the Highway Code and the national plan for road safety issued in
2002.
Concerning the application in Italy of priority systems as per defined by the
Implementation Road Map WG, the following systems are being used: ESC, blind spot
monitoring, adaptive head lights, obstacle and collision warning, late departure warning
(fitted in some cars and trucks). Italy is also promoting the use of eCall, one of the steps
was the signature of the eCall in MoU in 2005. There are however open issues to solve:
the infringement procedures by the EC against Italy and the existence of other
emergency numbers other than 112.
Concerning the application of TMC, it covers 80% of the population. Dynamic traffic
management applications are also being used for example on the Mestre Beltway since
2003. It has been observed that the number of rear-end collision decreased from 68% to
32%. The overall number of accidents also decreased.
The future eSafety steps include the involvement of ACI in the eSafety Communication
Platform, driving the national strategic plan for ITS development and pushing for the
organisation of field operational tests.
eSafety status in Southern Germany, Mr Frank Frischeisen, Autobahndirektion
Südbayern
154

The presentation was given from a road operator‘s view to ongoing projects. ITS
applications have been applied in Southern Germany since the 1970’s, such as: network
control, lane control, speed limits, danger warnings, maintenance work.
Autobahndirektion Südbayern is involved in a number of eSafety related projects such as
Coopers, Euroroads, FeedMAP, EURAMP and REACT. Mr Frischeisen then proceeded
to focus on the outcome of the REACT project.
The main conclusion of the presentation was: it is positive that eSafety applications are
developed, however the exchange of information between the vehicles, vehicles and
sensors, and road operators and sensors should be improved.
4.3.3.4 Austrian, Italian and Southern German Stakeholders presentations
The COMeSafety Specific Support Action, Mr Rudolf Mietzner, Softlab GmbH,
Germany
COMeSafety is helping coordinate and consolidate the research results, and
implementation, of eSafety projects dealing with communications. Other goals include
supporting the eSafety Forum in what concerns standardisation and frequency allocation,
worldwide harmonisation (Japan, US and Europe) and dissemination of the results.
Mr Mietzner then proceeded to report on the activities by ETSI and CEPT on spectrum
issues as well as on the status of compatibility studies.
The conclusions of Mr Mietzner’s presentation were:
• CEPT compatibility studies were successful
• Justification of requirements is essential
• If full compatibility/mitigation – allocation will be successful
• EC Mandate leading to an EC Decision
• Time-frame end 2007 – but certainly earlier (mid 2007)
• Licensing regimes to be developed
• Ongoing lobby activity and European promotion needed
More information about the project can be obtained from www.comesafety.org
The SAFESPOT Integrated Project, Mr Roberto Brignolo, CRF, Italy
Mr Brignolo, the IP coordinator of SAFESPOT gave an overview of the project’s
activities. SAFESPOT aims to understand how cooperative systems can cooperate to
produce a breakthrough for road safety. The project is focusing on the key technologies
related to communication, positioning and local dynamic maps.
SAFESPOT cooperates with the Car 2 Car Communication consortium as well as CVIS.
The project will carry out tests in six countries and will end its activities in 2009 with an
evaluation of the tests carried out.
155

The CVIS Integrated Project, Mr Gino Franco, MIZAR, Italy
In brief CVIS’s objective is to promote “Cooperative Systems for Road Transport” and
its vision is to create a wireless network between vehicles and infrastructure and increase
efficiency and safety through vehicle-infrastructure cooperation.
To achieve this vision CVIS will create pre-requisite conditions for widespread
take-up of cooperative vehicle-infrastructure systems and services.
The CVIS’s support to deployment will entail:
• Create standards (EU or global)
• Open, free core technology
• Safety, security, reliability
• Validate in realistic conditions
• Ensure user acceptability (e.g. data privacy)
• Build partnerships for investment
• Create widespread awareness
• Start with few high-return cases, extend
• Drive down unit costs, drive up value
The COOPERS Integrated Project: consequences of eCall service on European
motorways, Mr Alexander Frötscher, Austria Tech, Austria
COOPERS’s vision is to have vehicles connected via continuous wireless
communication with the road infrastructure on motorways, exchange data and
information relevant for the specific road segment to increase overall road safety and
enable co-operative traffic management.
To promote this goal the project is working on:
• Roadside data acquisition
• Traffic control center – TCC applications
• Road side transmitter
• On board unit
• Information services
COOPERS does not work directly with eCall. However Mr Froetscher showed in his
presentation how the activation of eCall during an accident could be used also for
warning and informing drivers thus consequently also helping emergency service
providers carry out efficient service.
Integrated Safety, Mr Andreas Teuner, DELPHI Electronics & Safety, Germany
An overview was given on Delphi’s involvement in eSafety, namely its participation in
the PReVENT project, Delphi’s work in eSafety at the European level and its point of
view and an outlook to the future.
In the context of the PReVENT project, Delphi participates in three subprojects:
Safelane, INSAFES and ProFusion2. Beyond the involvement in these EC funded subprojects
Delphi is also involved in a program on Automotive Collision Avoidance
Systems, an 8 year German government program culminating in Field Operational Trials.
Delphi is also involved in another American government program (SAVE-IT) and in a
Swedish government program.
156

From Delphi’s point of view eSafety (active and integrated safety) is a potential growing
market and as one of the major suppliers in this field Delphi has several active and
passive safety systems in production (warning systems, ACC, backup-aid, side alert and a
fusion system due to be ready in 2007).
VisLab research activities on vehicle perception, Mr Massimo Bertozzi,
University of Parma, Italy
Mr Bertozzi gave an overview of VisLab’s activities. VisLab is a research group with
expertise on artificial vision for ITS and sensor fusion. VisLab has been involved with
European projects and has research contracts with automotive companies and suppliers,
research centres, government and military.
A number of prototypes have been developed for road, off-road and extreme
environments. In terms of latest projects in the automotive field VisLab has been
cooperating with different automotive suppliers such as CRF, Volvo, Volkswagen, Argo
and Rockwell Collins.
Human-Machine Interaction for in-vehicle safety, research achievements and
perspectives, Mr Alessandro De Gloria, University of Genoa, Italy
The presentation focused on how HMI enhances ICT for car safety and the involvement
of the University of Genoa in EU IST projects.
Driver-supporting electronic systems can highly enhance car safety. A lot of progress has
recently been performed, with the development of a new generation of Advanced Driver
Assistance Systems (ADAS).
Accident statistics show that driver’s distraction is the most frequent cause of accidents
and this is becoming even more compelling with the ever growing number of systems
that are appearing in cars (entertainment, information, navigation and safety systems).
Human Machine Interaction (HMI) is a key area for safety since it studies algorithms,
devices and modalities to provide information to the driver reducing as much as possible
her/his sensorial and cognitive load.
The University of Genoa has been involved in the following EU IST projects:
• ACTIVE (configurable dashboards on LCDs)
• COMUNICAR (Smart information scheduler)
• EDEL (Night vision support)
• AIDE (Integrated HMI)
• SAFESPOT (Cooperation, v-v, v-i)
The future directions will involve:
• Enhancing the context-awareness level, by designing smarter detection and
interpretation algorithms and more powerful sensors and networks for
communication and cooperation and
157

• Promoting integration and standardisation among suppliers and car
manufacturers in order to make the system components able to dialogue and to
be effectively coordinated in an integrated and modular architecture which has
the driver (and thus, mainly her/his safety and comfort) in the centre of the
system.
eSafety deployment from Marketing perspective, Mr Walter Hagleitner, ADAS
Management Consulting, Austria
ADAS Management Consulting is a consultancy specialised in driver assistance. Mr
Hagleitner gave an overview of the European market take-up of eSafety technologies.
ESP was given as an example of a system that has seen an increase in sales. According to
him EuroNCAP has created a market of active and passive safety, however the
implementation of eSafety in vehicles remains slow. This is due to lack of problem and
solution awareness, and lack of business case.
To change the trend of slow eSafety implementation, the key business cases to be
developed should target:
1. Consumer / Car buyer
2. System supplier
3. Vehicle manufacturer
4. Sales person
Mr Hagleitner also recommended taking into account the Japanese approach which adds
features in packages and gets consumers used to the comfort benefit thus leading to
faster dissemination. Another way to get higher implementation would be to have
authorities’ vehicle fleets fitted with eSafety features.
RF-based Communication and Localisation for eSafety-Applications, Mr Axel
Sikora, Steinbeis Research Institute Wireless Communication, Germany
The Steinbeis Research Institute Wireless Communication performs applied research and
manages advanced customer projects. Its’ work area covers embedded design, embedded
internet, networking and telemetry. Its’ networking expertise also covers medical,
industrial and traffic applications.
Mr Sikora reported that the Steinbeis Research Institute Wireless Communication is part
of the EC-funded project WATCH – OVER which deals with vehicle-to-vulnerable road
user cooperative communication and sensing technologies to improve transport safety.
Aktiv - Cooperative Systems in Germany, Mr Michael Ortgiese, PTV AG
Karlsruhe, Germany
Mr Michael Ortgiese gave a presentation about AKTIV which is a national project
dealing with innovations in the fields of active safety, traffic management and C2C and
C2I Communication. AKTIV follows the 2005 results of the INVENT project, its’
acronym stands for Adaptive and Cooperative Technologies for the Intelligent Traffic.
The project is divided in three areas: driver assistance systems, active safety; traffic
management and cooperative cars.
158

AKTIV is based on the technologies developed in European Projects (GST, Prevent,
SafeSpot, and CVIS) and will build a substantial basis for further EU activities. It is
expected to extend the existing technology to go forward in the ITS research. It will also
link the new developments with the existing ITS infrastructure in Germany.
4.3.3.5 Conclusions, Mr Juhani Jääskeläinen, European Commission
Mr Juhani Jääskeläinen was impressed by the number of activities being conducted at a
regional level. There is however a need to coordinate all the activities and avoid
duplicating work.
In what concerns eCall, it remains high in the political agenda. It is a test case for eSafety.
There are stumbling blocks in the deployment and to solve this, the EC is willing to help
organise explicatory meetings. There is also the need to speed up the standardisation
works in order for the PSAP’s to handle only one standard for eCall.
Regarding user awareness, Mr Jääskeläinen, remarked that the ESC campaign by the
Communication Platform will be the test case, if it succeeds more campaigns will follow.
As for increasing the sale of eSafety, the only contribution the EC can give is with the
Eurobarometer study which provides answers on much people know about eSafety. It
shows for example that 70% of the people questioned said they would like to have eCall
in their cars.
Mr Jääskeläinen was of the opinion that the work on the public side should not focus
necessarily on incentives since it is difficult to reach harmonisation. Other solutions
should be looked into.
159

160

4.4 4 th eSafety Observers Regional Meeting (Athens, Greece)
Date: 21 September 2006
Venue: Institute of Communications and Computer Systems, Athens, Greece
Link:www.esafetysupport.org/en/esafety_activities/esafety_observers/fourth_esafety_observers
_regional_meeting_athens_greece_21_september_2006.htm
Objective: The objective was to bring together eSafety stakeholders from Greece, where
ITS Hellas has just been created, and Malta, where ITS Malta constitution was
undergoing, to get the region aware of eSafety activities, to involve them in the initiative
and to receive reports on regional activities, state-of-work and best practices.
4.4.1 Agenda
09.30 – 10.00 Registration and Coffee
10.00 – 10.30 Welcoming Address
Welcome – Nissim Benmayor, Ministry of Transport and
Communications, Greece
Welcome – Angelos Amditis, ICCS
Foreword to the Regional Meetings – Jacob Bangsgaard, eSafety
Support
10.30 – 11.30 eSafety Initiative
Strategic overview of the eSafety Initiative
Francisco Ferreira, European Commission, Directorate
General for Information Society and Media
Status of implementation of eSafety in the EU and priorities
Alessandro Carrotta, eSafety Support
11.30 – 11.45 Coffee Break
11.45 – 12.30 National Observers report on the eSafety status
Aris Stathakis – National Committee of Road Safety, Greece
Audrey Testaferrata – Malta Transport Authority, Malta
12.30 – 13.30 Press Conference and Lunch
13.30 – 15.30 Greek Stakeholders presentations
eSafety applications in Greece
Angelos Amditis, I-SENSE Group ICCS
ITS HELLAS status and next steps
161

15.30 – 15.45 Coffee Break
Yiannis Moissidis, Navteq – ITS Hellas
The government point of view on eSafety
Nissim Benmayor, Greek Ministry of Transport
The Ministry's Contribution to ITS & Road Safety
Dimitris Sermpis, Greek Ministry of Public Works
Emergency Call (eCall) Services based on approved E-112
regulations and infrastructures: A solution to improve
security and release of road help
Ioannis P.Chochliouros, Hellenic Telecommunications
Organizations S.A
15.45 – 16.15 Discussion: next steps for eSafety in the EU and in Greece and
Malta
Moderators: Jacob Bangsgaard
Francisco Ferreira
16.15 Closing of the Regional Meeting and adjourn
162

4.4.2 List of Participants
Last Name First Name Organisation
Agoritsa Katerina Net Technologies
Alexandrou Dimitrios National Technical University of Athens
Amditis Angelos ICCS- NTUA
Anargiros Kouzis
Hellenic Ministry of Transport &
Telecommunications
Andreas Iliopoulos TRAM SA
Andreas Mesimeris DEI CORPORATION
Andreas Ninios ORATION S.A
BANGSGAARD Jacob eSafety Support
Bekiaris Evangelos CERTH-HIT
Benmayor Nissim Greek Ministry of Transport
CARROTTA Alessandro eSafety Support
CHADZOPOULOS Manio Ministry of Public Works
CHOCHLIOUROS Ioannis P.
Hellenic Telecommunications Organization S.A.
(OTE)
Christini Katapodi ORATION S.A
COBOPOULOS YANNIS OMNIS/ITSS S.A.
DAKOS STAMATIS cosmoONE
David Nikos OLYMPIC AIRWAYS
Dimitrios Alexandrou UBITECH LTD
Dionisis Grigoropoulos WACKENHUT TELEMATIX
FERREIRA Francisco European Commission
FRANTZESKAKIS Ioannis
DENCO DEVELOPMENT AND
ENGINEERING CONSULTANTS S.A.
G. PERROS KONSTANTINOS PLIVIOS (UK) LIMITED
Grigoropoulos Dionisis Wackenhut Telematix
HANIOTIS Konstantinos TELENAVIS
KAPOGIANNIS GEORGIOS
Management and Economics of Telecommunication
Network
Karagkiouloglou Ioanna eLab, The business! Lab - Athens
Kiores George ICCS
Konstantinopoulou Lina ICCS
Konstantinos Perros N/A
Maragoudaki Antonia ICCS
MESSIMERIS Andreas POWER DYNAMIC CORPORATION
MIZARAS VASSILIS TREDIT SA
Moissidis Yiannis Navteq
Mpimpa Hara GRNET S.A./Greek Research Network
Nikolaou Stella CERTH/HIT
Ouzounoglou Nikos ICCS
163

PAGLÉ Katia ICCS
SERMPIS Dimitris Greek Ministry of Public Works
SILVA Irina eSafety Support
STATHAKIS Aris National Committee of Road Safety, Greece
Testaferrata de Noto Audrey Malta Transport Authority
Theodoropoulos Vassilis TELEMATIX
THEOFILIS Ioanis Ministry of Public Works
TOUZOS MICHAEL KAPODISTRIAN UNIVERSITY
Tsianos Athanasios DENCO
VORVOLAKOS Theodoros Ministry of Public Works
PHILOTHEIDIS, ROGAS & PARTNERS LAW
Zoulovits Mina
FIRM
164

4.4.3 Minutes
4.4.3.1 Welcoming Address
Mr Jacob Bangsgaard (eSafety Support) opened the meeting by thanking the participants
and ICCS for co-hosting the event. He then proceeded to give a short overview of past
eSafety Regional Meetings and presented the planned meetings for 2007.
Mr Nissim Benmayor (Ministry of Transport and Communications, Greece) hoped that
the meeting would give an overview of activities in Greece and that it would contribute
to the development of road safety in Europe in order to reduce the death toll on the
roads.
Mr Angelos Amditis (ICCS) welcomed everyone on behalf of ICCS and National
Technical University of Athens. For Mr Amditis the meeting would give the opportunity
for interesting discussions in the use of ITS applications for road safety.
4.4.3.2 eSafety Initiative
Strategic overview of the eSafety Initiative, Mr Francisco Ferreira, European
Commission, Directorate General for Information Society and Media
Mr Ferreira’s presentation focused on the Intelligent Car Initiative, FP7 and FP6 major
activities.
Mr Ferreira presented figures on road accidents worldwide. The road fatalities in Europe
are still high but it’s improving. The eSafety Initiative launched in 2002 aims at halving
the number of accidents by 2010.
The Intelligent Car Initiative was presented and it’s three pillars (eSafety Forum, research
programme and awareness activities).
The presentation then focused on eCall. The infrastructure of eCall, meaning the PSAP’s
should be ready by the end of 2007.
The eSafety Forum’s next steps will focus on: the follow-up of the 2nd eSafety
Communication on eCall at the Parliament and the Council in December 2006, release of
status report on eCall (November 2006), release of the HMI Recommendation (early
2007) and investigate the use of incentives and address the spectrum needs.
The second part of the presentation focused on FP7 preparation and ICT
Workprogramme 2007-2008. The workprogramme will focus on collaborative research
themes. Theme 3, ICT “Mobility” will look into application research such as ICT
meeting societal challenges. Mr Ferreira informed that the participation rules for FP7
would be published on the CORDIS website.
165

Mr Ferreira was queried by the participants about making eCall operational in all EU
countries, he informed that eCall should be operational by 2010. All new cars should be
equipped with eCall by 2010. The EC is also looking into applying eCall to motorbikes.
But telecom operators have to work on implementation. The telecom operators have to
deal with the minimum set of data (MSD) that will transfer the location given by the
navigation system in the car. The initial plan was to have all cars equipped by 2009 and
this was extended to 2010. However before eCall is implemented, E112 has to be
implemented in all EU countries. E112 implementation is mandatory and there are
infringement procedures against a number of member states which have not complied
with this rule.
The next question was about the eCall business case and the role of the public
authorities. Mr Ferreira answered that there are studies that show a big return on
investment. There are difficulties of course. Globally, there is a great potential to save
money. The EC has met the insurance companies who seem to not be very interested in
eCall. A fatality costs less than an injury. The EC is still looking at incentives.
Status of implementation of eSafety in the EU and priorities, Dr Alessandro
Carrotta, eSafety Support
Dr Carrotta gave an overview of the eSafety Support activities which includes the
stimulation and monitoring of the activities, progress and results generated by the eSafety
initiative through support to the eSafety Forum and its Working Groups.
The presentation then focused on eSafety implementation in the EU. An overview of
activities in different member states was given such as Spain, Sweden and the
Netherlands.
The participants were requested to contribute to the Regional Survey on eSafety which
aims to find out the current status of the deployment of the priority systems in European
countries.
User Awareness, Mr Jacob Bangsgaard, eSafety Support
Mr Jacob Bangsgaard gave a presentation on the current activities for eSafety user
awareness. He explained that a campaign on eSafety is needed because it is hard to
explain what eSafety is to the consumers. There is low awareness about eSafety and for
this reason the EuroNCAP campaign has been successful.
The challenges eSafety faces are related to the products’ high maintenance cost. The
privacy issues, the possibility that people may be confused with the presence of eSafety
technologies in the car. In addition, eSafety is defined in many different ways, there are
numerous names to define the same eSafety technology.
Mr Bangsgaard reported that eSafety Aware had had its first Steering Group. The chair is
FIA Foundation. In order to join this platform, organisations can contact eSafety
Support or FIA Foundation. eSafety Aware’s first action will be a campaign on ESC. The
objective is to explain to authorities, politicians and press, what it means to have ESC in
the car. A demonstration will take place in 2007 in a test track in Rome.
166

Mr Bangsgaard was of the opinion that there is a need to take immediate action to
promote all the work done on the research side. If we can’t explain eSafety, it cannot be
sold.
4.4.3.3 National Observers report on the eSafety status
Report on Road Safety status in Greece, Mr Aris Stathakis, National Committee
of Road Safety (presentation was given in Greek)
Mr Aris Stathakis gave an overview of the road safety activities in Greece. The national
parliament has put forward new legislation which increases fines for not wearing a
seatbelt. In Greece there are more road accidents in village roads than in highways, the
reason for the severity of these accidents is not only speed, not wearing a seatbelt or
helmet and alcohol consumption are major factors.
In terms of action taken in Greece to improve the situation, Mr Stathakis reported that
driving schools teachers are being targeted to provide more information on road safety.
Another actions has been the offering of free helmets to motorbike drivers. The Greek
parliament has also agreed to advance with policy for better road safety.
eSafety Applications in Malta, Mrs Audrey Testaferrata, Malta Transport
Authority
Mrs Testaferrata reported on eSafety status in Malta. The size of Malta (400 000
inhabitants) cannot be compared to other EU member states, this has an impact in the
total number of fatalities.
One of the actions taken by Malta Transport Authority has been to visit the accident
sites to analyse the accidents’ causes and establish accident clusters. This helps arrange
necessary upgrading measures.
Concerning intelligent traffic systems, these are still very new to Malta. Mrs Testaferrata
reported that some actions are already being applied:
◊ Linked Traffic Light Junctions (to decrease pollution and maximise the capacity
of the traffic lights)
◊ Loop activation of traffic lights
◊ Pilot Project to introduce intelligent systems to address congestion and safety
problems in traffic sensitive locations
The next objectives are to introduce speed limits and real time data collection.
One system Malta is developing is to provide real time parking information to providers.
The capital is located in a peninsula and its access is limited, this technology will bring
advantages for traffic management.
In terms of legislation Malta has introduced EU Type-Approval Regulations in relation
to new M1 passenger cars as well as well as other motor-vehicle regulations.
167

Mrs Testaferrata concluded by reporting that the Malta Transport Authority, in terms of
user outreach, has links with the public via radio, website, customer care services,
television and requested datasheet system (the public can comment on road safety
through a mail system. Malta Transport Authority deals with these comments directly).
4.4.3.4 Greek Stakeholders presentations
eSafety applications in Greece, Dr Angelos Amditis, i-SENSE Group ICCS
Dr Amditis presented the activities of the ICCS and i-SENSE Group. The Institute has
been strongly involved in ICT and European Commission projects.
Dr Amditis then proceeded to give a picture of the road safety situation in Greece. The
country is in a bad position concerning road fatalities. More than 16.000 fatal car
accidents occur per year. Greece is diverse in its use of different modes of transportation:
road transport, sea transport, air transport, rail transport and private passenger cars.
There is a big interest in ITS in Greece. Different organisations in Greece have expressed
ITS demand. They would like to see the transfer of knowledge from other countries to
Greece in order to improve its ITS applications. Car manufacturers are driving ITS
supply and in Dr Amditis’ opinion Greece loses from this since it does not have car
industry.
Dr Amditis then presented the applications of ITS to infrastructure in Greece as well as
the ITS research activities being conducted by ICCS.
ITS HELLAS status and next steps, Mr Yiannis Moissidis, Navteq & ITS Hellas
Mr Moissidis began by introducing himself: he works for Navteq, has co-chaired the
eSafety Digital Maps WG and is now working on ITS Hellas.
There have been a lot of initiatives on ITS. The importance level has moved from pan-
European to the national level aiming at implementing ITS understanding to the national
characteristics.
ITS Greece a founding member of Network of National ITS Associations founded in
2004.
In early 2006 a Working group was established in order to create the statutes of the new
organisation and to prepare all needed actions towards the establishment of ITS
HELLAS (more preferred than the name ITS Greece). Members include Navteq, ICCS,
CERTH, DENCO, EMFASIS, INTRACOM, ITSS SA, TREDIT, WAKENHUT,
Ministry of Transport and Communication, Ministry of Public Works and Environment.
The aim of ITS Hellas organisation is to promote the development and use of ITS in
Greece and the export and experience of Greek technology abroad, while also increasing
transport safety, environmental protection, mobility and comfort of the public.
168

The government point of view on eSafety, Mr Nissim Benmayor, Greek Ministry
of Transport and Communications
Mr Benmayor reported on the activities of the International Telecommunication Union
(ITU). The Ministry of Transport and Communications is at the moment carrying the
obligations of the administration of the ITU.
A focus group has been established to develop a new set of requirements and
specifications to help advance the work of the ITU-T SG12, mainly Questions 4/12
(Hands-free communication in vehicles) and 12/12 (Performance evaluation of services
based on speech technology), and to encourage participation in this activity of members
of other standards organisations involved in car and Telecommunications/ICT
industries, including experts and individuals who may not be members of ITU.
The Ministry's Contribution to ITS & Road Safety, Dr Dimitris Sermpis, Ministry
of Public Works
The Ministry’s policy is based on a definition of a National Strategy for the development
of Intelligent Transport Systems in Greece, operation of specific schemes within the
defined framework to improve road safety, traffic and environmental conditions and
encouragement of the development of innovative applications in the field of Transport.
Dr Sermpis proceeded to present a number of activities by the Ministry of Public Works
namely:
• Athens Traffic Management Center
• Development of innovative telematic applications
• Interoperability for Electronic Fee Collection (EFC)
• Speed Enforcement Cameras
Emergency Call (eCall Services based on approved E-112 regulations and
infrastructures: A solution to improve sercurity and release of road help, Dr
Ioannis Chochliouros, Hellenic Telecommunications Organisations S.A.
Dr Chochliouros focused on a number of eCall related topics:
1. the challenges for the development of Emergency Call (eCall) solutions
2. eCall Services – Target & Main Operation
3. eCall Implementation in Vehicles
4. Enhanced security through the location-enhanced single European emergency
number (112)
5. Proposed technological solutions – General Approach
6. Current European Standardisation Initiatives
7. eCall – Creating Potential in the Market Sector
8. Legal Challenges for realising the eCall
9. Overview and Conclusions
169

Dr Chochliouros main conclusions were that eCall benefits are expected to reduce
fatality and injury level, with strong impact in health, insurance and emergency services’
costs. There are various requirements that have to be taken into account during
implementation efforts:
• “Shared” resources to reduce network congestion
• Subscriber authentication/identification issues
• Network interworking & interoperability
• Priority “treatment” over normal traffic
• Security and Recovery issues
• User friendliness for equipment functionality
• Availability of equipment / low prices
The eCall effort constitutes a good example of what the public and private industry can
achieve by working together, in a fully “synchronised” way, to promote their strategy,
tactical and operational goals. It is also a remarkable case of what can be achieved by
combining regulation and voluntary measures within an “open”, fully liberalised and
competitive market.
During the questions and answers period, Dr Chochliouros explained that Greece is
ready to implement eCall, but doesn’t know if this solution will be a permanent one given
the way the information has to be transmitted from the vehicle to the PSAP’s.
4.4.3.5 Discussion: next steps for eSafety in the EU and in Greece and Malta
Mr Bangsgaard presented the conclusions and next steps. The main challenge will be to
reduce the number of fatalities by 50% by 2010. For this the national support to ITS and
eSafety will have to increase as well as support the deployment. There is need to raise
user awareness, and to introduce new technologies. A business case is also needed as well
as to explore the possibility of providing incentives.
Other challenges include:
To follow the eCall road Map;
Use an integrated approach involving a large number of stakeholders;
Acknowledge the difference in product lifecycles – road, vehicle, technology;
Distribute information and networking between the large number of national and
European eSafety activities.
Mr Bangsgaard also pointed out future actions that the Greek and Maltese stakeholders
should consider:
◊ Involvement in FP6 activities and FP7
◊ Involvement in i2010 – High Level Demonstrations
◊ Impact assessment incl. FOT
◊ Participation in the Communication Platform – eSafety campaigning
◊ Integration and standardisation work
◊ Cooperative systems
◊ ITS Congresses and events
◊ International cooperation – US, Japan, Australia, Korea, China, India.
170

171

4.5 4 th eSafety Observers European meeting (Stockholm, Sweden
and Helsinki, Finland)
Date: 2-3 November 2006
Venue: Trafik Stockholm, Stockholm, Sweden – Silja Lines Cruise Boat - Ministry
of Transport and Communications, VTT, FMI, Helsinki, Finland
Link:http://www.esafetysupport.org/en/esafety_activities/esafety_observers/esafety_ob
servers_european_meeting_stockholm_and_helsinki_2-3_november_2006.htm
Objective: The objective was to bring together eSafety Observers from all Europe to
report and discuss on two main topics: eCall and ICT for Clean Mobility.
4.5.1 Agenda
Day 1 – Stockholm, Sweden, 2 November
9.00 – 9.30 Coffee and registration
9.30 – 10.30 Visit to the Traffic Management Centre, Trafik Stockholm
10.30 – 10.50 Presentation on eSafety priorities in Sweden
Alf Peterson, SRA – Swedish Road Administration
10.50 – 11.00 Welcoming Address to the Observers Meeting
Foreword to the European Observers Meeting
Alessandro Carrotta, eSafety Support
11.00 – 11.20 The eSafety Initiative and its priorities
Juhani Jääskelainen, European Commission for Information
Society and Media
11.20 – 11.45 Transfer to the Silja Line Cruise boat
12.00 – 12.45 Lunch on the Cruise Boat
13.00 – 14.15 eSafety National Observers Session I:
Topic: eCall
Moderators: Juhani Jääskelainen
Jacob Bangsgaard
14.30 – 15.15 Visit of the cruise boat bridge
15.30 – 16.30 eSafety National Observers Session II:
Topic: Clean and Efficient Mobility
172

16.30 – 17.00 Check-in to the cabins
Moderators: Juhani Jääskelainen
Jacob Bangsgaard
17.00 Departure from Stockholm of the Cruise boat
19.0 Dinner on the boat
Day 2 – Helsinki, Finland, 3 November
08.30 – 09.30 Breakfast on the Cruise Boat
09.55 Arrival in Helsinki
10.15 Bus transfer to the Ministry of Transport and
Communications
11.00 – 11.30 Update of Finnish eSafety activities
Sappo Oorni, Ministry of Transport and Communications
11.30 – 12.00 eCall in Finland
Antti Rainio, Ministry of Transport and Communications
12.15 – 13.15 Lunch
13.15 – 14.00 Bus transfer to VTT – Technical Research Centre
14.00 – 14.50 Visit to VTT – Technical Research Centre
Presentations about eCall communications test bench and incar
warning device for railway level crossings
15.00 – 15.45 Bus transfer from VTT to FMI – Finnish Meteorological Centre
15.45 – 16.15 Visit to FMI – Finnish Meteorological Centre
Presentation about Driver Alert Service
16.15 – 16.30 Wrap-up session
Jacob Bangsgaard, eSafety Support
16.45 Bus transfer from FMI to Helsinki-Vantaa airport
173

4.5.2 List of Participants
LAST NAME First name Organisation Country
Bangsgaard Jacob eSafety Support
Bolte Fritz BAST Germany
Carrotta Alessandro eSafety Support
Cirilo Rámon LISITT - UV Spain
Dumitrescu Dorin ITS Romania Romania
H. Machado Jorge CRP-Portuguese Road Centre Portugal
Heffernan Martin Road Safety Authority Ireland
JAASKELAINEN Juhani European Commission - DG INFSO EC
LEREBOULLET Pierre LOGMA SA France
Mazzone Franceso ACI Italy
Nemtanu Florin
Politehnica University of Romania of Bucharest
Romanian eSafety Forum Romania
Öörni Risto VTT Finland
Öörni Seppo MINTC Finland
Oxley Kristin eSafety Support
Petersen Alf SRA - Swedish Road Administration Sweden
Potters Paul ITS Nederland Netherlands
Lusk Frantisek ELTODO EG, a.s. Czech Republic
Rainio Antti ITS Finland Finland
Raviglione Cesare ISMB Italy
Roberg Clas SRA - Swedish Road Administration Sweden
Roine Matti Ministry of Transport and Communications, Finland Finland
Sanchez Francisco CTAG Spain
Testaferrata de Noto Audrey Malta Transport Authority Malta
174

4.5.3 Minutes
European eSafety Observers came together on 2 and 3 November 2006 to review how
eSafety systems can help reduce the number of fatalities and injuries on Europe’s roads.
Organised by eSafety Support and co-hosted by the Swedish Road Administration and
VTT Technical Research Centre of Finland, day one of the European eSafety Observers
meeting took place in Stockholm, while day 2 was organised in Helsinki. The aim was to
review how stakeholders can work together in order to boost the deployment of eSafety
systems.
The meeting featured presentations by European Commission and eSafety Support
experts, giving an overview of the eSafety initiative and its current priorities. Discussions
focused on progress in the Member States towards the full scale roll-out of eCall.
4.5.3.1 2 November 2006
4.5.3.1.1 SESSION 1
Welcome and introduction by Alf Peterson, Swedish Road Administration
Presentation “The Stockholm Joint Traffic Management Center” by Alf Petersen
Basic information about Trafik Centre Stockholm, a joint-venture between City of
Stockholm and The Swedish Road Administration. The centre operates 24 hour a day,
every day of the year, with 25 people, localised in Stockholm, near the E4 highway.
175

Presentation Swedish ITS Strategy 2006- 2009 by Alf Peterson
The overall ITS activities until 2009 focus on the following 5 main areas:
1. Improve road safety
2. Facilitate efficient commuting
3. Support more efficient commercial transports
4. Provide quality-assured road and traffic data
5. Develop efficiency and reliability in the work on ITS
As for the safety activities, the main areas are the following:
1. Better compliance with the speed limit
◊ Speed Alert: SRA has continued its work to install voluntary Speed Alert
systems in its vehicles. Other organisations are following this example
and around 30 organisations and companies are now equipping their
commercial vehicles with Speed Alert systems. SRA estimate that about
1000 systems have been installed to date. The quality of speed related
data has been improved due to the increased use of Speed Alert.
Stockholm transport has equipped 200 buses with Speed Alert.
◊ Life Saver (speed enforcement)
◊ Variable speed limits
2. Fewer people driving under the influence of alcohol
◊ Alcohol detection systems: the breath analyzer represents a quality assurance
tool for companies, and an alternative to withdrawal of driving license. 10.000
of them are in use and increasing, supported by strong political support.
Sweden is the pilot country in Europe.
3. Fewer people driving with impaired ability
◊ drugs, drowsiness, distraction
◊ Intelligent Vehicle Safety Systems – IVSS RD&D program
4. Faster emergency/rescue services at accidents
◊ eCall: the MoU is signed. A cost -benefit calculation is performed. SRA will
develop plan and national platform for the introduction of eCall in 2009.
Stockholm will host the ITS World Congress in 2008.
4.5.3.1.2 SESSION 2
Session introduction by Jacob Bangsgaard, Director eSafety Support
Presentation of eCall questionnaire by Alessandro Carrotta, eSafety Suppport
Project and Development manager
Tour de table on eCall challenges nationally:
Finland – Antti Rainio:
112 is very well known as it has been in use for 10 years. The PSAP system has been in
use for the same period of time. It is easy to implement eCall because Finland has a
centralised system. eCall will be implemented in the Finnish PSAP system by 2008. e112
was implemented two years ago.
176

Germany – Fritz Bolte:
There is no central e112 system in Germany, and there are as many as 960 different
PSAPs. This causes problems when discussing eCall. The fact that eCall is a matter for
the Ministry of Interior and not the Ministry of Transport, and that it is not a federal
question, but a question for the länder, further complicates matters.
Germany has asked that the subsidiarity principle be observed for the implementation of
the eCall standard. There are still privacy issues that need to be addressed by the
European Commission and ACEA, and these questions have to be solved before a MOU
can be signed.
Italy – Francesco Mazzone & Cesare Raviglione:
There are at least four emergency numbers in Italy. An upgrade of the PSAPs for e112
will be launched. The Ministry of Innovation and Technology is in charge of this process.
118 is the number most frequently used for medical emergencies, so it is necessary to
work side by side with the organisation operating this number.
The Ministry of Infrastructure and Transport is in charge of telematics and
interoperability. In 2001, they launched eCall as a pilot project. A feasibility evaluation
was initiated, but has been halted due to lack of funding. The organisation of an eCall
trial could be very useful, but European Commission funding would be necessary to
finance such a trial. FP7 and the Competitiveness and Innovation Program (CIP) are
possible sources of funding in this respect. CIP could fund an activity in 2008.
Romania – Florin Nemtanu & Dorin Dumitrescu:
In Romania, there are 41 emergency centres and one central one. An incoming message
is first processed at a management centre and then passed on to the relevant emergency
authority – police, fire brigade, etc. Most emergency centres have location capability and
the e112 technology exists.
A Memorandum has been signed with the main parties – the Ministry of IT and the
Ministry of Transport. However, the organisation representing private car owners are not
yet convinced of the benefits of eCall, and they await European clarification regarding
the standardisation issues. A two step process will lead to the signing of the eCall
Memorandum of Understanding:
1. Promote the issue of eCall in Romania. ITS Romania is currently involved in
such work.
2. When awareness has been raised, the MoU will be signed.
Romania is currently in the process of creating a national ITS architecture and eCall will
be introduced as an element in this structure.
177

Spain – Francisco Sanchez:
The main barrier to the introduction of eCall is the centralised PSAP organisation. A
Spanish eSafety forum has been created to move eSafety issues forward. Its main priority
will be eCall. Financing the PSAP upgrades that eCall necessitates is a challenge.
Additionally, the PSAPs want to ensure that a filtering of calls takes place in order to
make sure that the information that arrives at the PSAP is information of quality.
Malta – Audrey Testaferrata:
Malta is currently exploring the possibility of receiving European funding for eCall
implementation. They want to do more awareness and education work.
Sweden – Clas Roberg:
There is only one PSAP in Sweden, and the 112 number is well known. In the course of
2007, e112 will be implemented. Volvo on call – a system similar to eCall - is currently
running. The questions related to the practical operation of eCall will hopefully be solved
in the course of 2006. The outlook for eCall implementation in Sweden is in general very
good. However, the business case is a bottle neck.
Portugal – H. Jorge Machado:
112 is universally known in Portugal. With respect to structure, PSAPs are public entities.
They are regionalized with a central filtering system. At least 25% of the calls received by
PSAPs are false calls, so there is a great need for filtering. In relation to eCall, the initial
assessment of whether or not to sign up to eCall was made by the previous government,
so with the new government in place the process was started again from scratch. By the
end of 2007, Portugal will probably be in a position to give its view on whether or not to
sign up to the eCall MoU.
Netherlands – Paul Potters:
The in-car technology that the implementation of eCall necessitates is a problem.
Additionally, the lack of a clear business case creates difficulties. The misuse of the
information generated by the eCall systems is also a potential problem. Sixteen
recommendations are currently being investigated by the Netherlands, and next year an
eCall pilot will be organised.
Ireland- Martin Hefferman:
999 is currently used for all emergency calls. 112 is only used for mobile phones. Ireland
will set up a national forum to gather all the stakeholders involved in the implementation
of eCall.
178

France – Pierre Lereboullet:
In the past, the 112 number has not been backed by the French authorities, and PSAPs
have been reluctant to treat 112 calls. This has now changed. However, regarding eCall,
the decision is in the hands of the car manufacturers. They are active in the eSafety
Forum and positive to eCall. Financing for eCall will come from the ministry of
Transport. eCall will be implemented when a standard has been set up. Privacy
protection is not a real problem in France.
Comments to the tour de table by Juhani Jääskeläinen, European Commission,
DG Information Society and Media:
The European Commission supports the standardisation process currently taking place
in ETSI. Standardisation of the minimum set of data is ongoing in ISO, and the
Commission is doing their best to push this forward.
Must be very careful about the prospects for using eCall data for other purposes than
originally intended, as the Data Protection Agency states that eCall data can not be used
for any other services at all.
Technically, the eCall platform can be used for other services. The Commission has no
technical requirements for the in-vehicle platform.
False calls and filtering is not an issue, because there will not be more emergency calls
due to the roll-out of eCall.
eCall is a public service issue and it should not be left up to the car manufacturers, etc.
Comments to the tour de table by Jacob Bangsgaard, Director eSafety Support
Demonstration and awareness are linked. The ITS Nationals could be active in
developing demonstration activities, for example setting up a proposal for demonstration
of the cross-border functioning of eCall, etc. The ITS Nationals can also help in raising
awareness. eSafetyAware is another platform that can be used for raising awareness in the
future.
Presentation of the European Commission’s Intelligent Car Initiative and progress on
eCall by Juhani Jääskeläinen, DG Information Society and Media
4.5.3.1.3 SESSION 3
Presentation of questionnaire on clean mobility by Alessandro Carrotta, eSafety
Suppport
Tour de table on clean mobility:
Finland – Antti Rainio:
To support clean mobility, we must encourage people to use public transport. It is also
important to keep the traffic flowing as a way of saving energy and supporting mobility.
Germany – Fritz Bolte:
179

Traffic management systems implicitly include clean mobility as they reduce congestion
and thereby reduce pollution. The price of oil also contributes to reducing pollution, as
when oil becomes more expensive, the motors become more energy efficient.
Czech Republic - František Lusk:
In Prague, the Traffic Control Centres give preference to public transport, giving
bus/tram drivers the possibility to ask the traffic management centre to route them
through more quickly.
Italy – Francesco Mazzone & Cesare Raviglione:
The car sector has improved in terms of efficiency and thereby environmental
friendliness. The way forward is to increase cooperation between vehicles and
infrastructure in order to use the infrastructure better. Better traffic management can give
environmental benefits. Training and education is important in order to implement
interoperable solutions.
Romania – Florin Nemtanu & Dorin Dumitrescu:
Four issues are relevant:
1. Public transport must be made more attractive.
2. Use of alternative energy such as biofuel. In Romania there is a plant for
biodiesel.
3. Use of new systems and technology to decrease pollution in central areas.
4. The creation of multimodal solutions in urban areas.
Romania is currently in a phase of developing its transport system to bring it into line
with European requirements. Romania will include ITS solutions when building new
infrastructure, because it is cheaper to have it implemented from the start rather than
including it later. Such intelligent solutions have a positive impact on the environment.
Spain – Francisco Sanchez:
In the short term, improved navigation systems can yield environmental benefits. In the
medium term, cooperative systems can be explored as a means to make transport more
environmentally friendly. It is important to distinguish between interurban and urban
traffic as different solutions are needed for the two environments. An effort should be
made to compile the available studies in this area in order to put the issue on the table of
decision makers and allow them to make their decisions based on solid data.
180

Malta – Audrey Testaferrata:
Malta has introduced energy efficient lamps on their roads which require less
maintenance and functions better. Malta is currently working to introduce intelligent
traffic management and a tender will be published by the end of November 2006.
Consultations with stakeholders are ongoing. Malta wants a 24 hour monitoring of the
network. Malta has recently improved its public transport with more buses, etc. Bypasses
have been constructed to reduce traffic through residential areas.
Sweden – Clas Roberg:
There is much effort devoted to the issue of clean mobility in Sweden. Park and ride
facilities are being explored and bicycle and pedestrian paths are being constructed.
Public transport is given priority in traffic management.
Portugal – H. Jorge Machado:
In Portugal, the Government has successfully used taxes to reduce emissions – the
cleaner the engine, the lower the tax. The Government is also trying to link max speed to
pollution, convincing people to drive slower in order to save the environment. There are
however doubts about the efficiency of such a soft strategy. An education campaign
attempting to get people to use public transport to a greater extent has been launched.
The bus services have been improved, but there is a lingering image that only poor
people use buses. The metro has a better image. Ring roads are being built to fight
congestion in city centres.
Netherlands – Paul Potters:
On some highways you are only allowed to drive 80 km, and speed control makes sure
that the speed limits are respected. There are tax reductions for environmentally friendly
cars.
Ireland- Martin Heffernan:
Environmental questions are outside the remit of the road safety authority. There are two
million vehicles in Ireland – most families have a car and in most cases they have two. A
lot of the environmental problems are centred around Dublin. A dedicated radio station
for Dublin traffic is operating. There has been a major increase in the number of cycle
lanes. A new tram system has helped reduce congestion on major routes. A metro will be
in place by 2012. Bus corridors have helped cut congestion. In rural areas there is an
increase in motorways, which cuts emissions and also road deaths. Driver training is
supported. A monitoring system for oil spills is in place, which helps both safety and the
environment. Traffic information is available online. All 4-12 years old school children
take part in the education programme Green Flag.
181

France – Pierre Lereboullet:
France has experimented with reducing speed limits in order to decrease emissions. The
trial with recommended speed limits during the summer on major highways has been
very successful. In French cities, congestion charging is politically sensitive so we will not
see that happen very soon. A multimodal journey planner online service is mandatory by
law in all large French cities. An increased number of dedicated lanes for public transport
has proved very efficient in moderating the use of cars in big cities.
Comments to the tour de table by Juhani Jääskeläinen, European Commission,
DG Information Society and Media:
With the new eSafety Working Group on clean mobility, we wish to address what we can
achieve through the use of ICT. The use of Biofuels, etc is outside our scope.
The question of how to sell public transport better and make people use it more is an
important question. A multimodal travel planner is an important tool in this respect.
It is important to try to limit the amount of CO2 cars are allowed to emit. However, this
is difficult because the environmental issue is not top priority when people go and buy a
new car. It is therefore necessary to look into the issues of driver training – eco driving.
Comments to the tour de table by National Observers:
Romania – Dorin Dumitrescu:
We need to harmonise and be more efficient. The new WG should develop a set of
recommendations so that these can be incorporated into national strategies.
Portugal – H. Jorge Machado:
ITS does not have a good image outside experts circles. It is seen as a big hype and
people are generally very defensive about the real potential of ITS solutions. We must
make a selection among the most promising alternatives and concentrate on those,
because a success story will help us promote ITS solutions.
eSafety Support - Jacob Bangsgaard:
We should consider the possibility of involving some environmental experts within the
WG, since this expertise is lacking within the eSafety Forum.
DG Information Society and Media, Juhani Jääskeläinen:
We must look more closely into what issues the WG should discuss. Cars21 have also
looked into the issue of clean mobility and it is important that we do not do overlapping
work. The focus must be what we can achieve through the use of ICT.
Germany – Fritz Bolte:
182

Considering the add-ons that we can achieve through safety measures is one thing, but if
we want to see the full potential of these systems, we must also look into other measures.
4.5.3.2 3 November 2006
Presentation on AINO by Seppo Öörni, VTT – Technical Research Center
Finland
Videos shown:
◊ Extended green light
◊ Website for reporting dangerous traffic spots
◊ Mobile phone payment of public transport and parking
◊ eCall
◊ Smart Traffic – information on road conditions, etc.
◊ Intelligent Speed Adaptation
◊ Alcolock
◊ Helmi: Public transport telematics system. Passenger information and
efficient routing through traffic.
◊ Automatic Ship identification system helps prevent collisions in busy waters
Discussion:
In Finland, there are some pilots ongoing in the field of floating car data but no firm
decision has been taken on the next steps. The results are promising but how to make
use of them is still to be decided.
In Spain, these topics are not as developed as in Finland. With eCall, all vehicles will have
a communication unit. This is very promising for the future of telematics.
In the Netherlands, a tender for the monitoring of all national roads has been published.
The winner can use whatever technique they prefer, but floating car data is the most
likely solution. The Government will pay for the collection of data and it will be free for
service providers to get the basic data.
Presentation on eCall in Finland – Antti Rainio, ITS Finland
Discussion:
The development of the PSAP system is easy in Finland, because there is a centralised
system. Studies show that it would only take two persons about three months to
implement eCall. However, we need the standards. Estimates show that the eCall
equipment would cost ca 150 euros to buy in addition to the 200 – 300 euros it will cost
to install the system in the car. The integration of applications could be a good strategy,
combining eCall and other services such as congestion charging into one box. Prototypes
for such units exist already, so if given the green light, the market could develop quickly.
183

184

Chapter 5 -
PROGRESS OF THE 28
RECOMMENDATIONS
185

5.1 List of recommendations
The eSafety High-Level meeting on 25 April 2002 called for the establishment of a
Working Group, to be tasked to further elaborate the European strategy, to recommend
actions and to prepare for the next High-Level Meeting. The Commission services
established this Working Group, which met four times in 2002 on 7 June, 8 July, 9
September and 8 November. The final report of the eSafety Working Group from
November 2002 lists 28 recommendations for further actions within the following
eSafety related topics:
� Accident Causation Data
� Impact assessment of safety systems
� Human-Machine Interaction
� Road Map for Intelligent Integrated Safety
� Intelligent Passive Safety Systems
� Intelligent Integrated Road Safety Systems including ADAS
� The European Safety Map database
� Emergency Calls (e-Calls) and E-112
� Real-time Traffic and Traveller Information (RTTI) for road safety
� Motor vehicle type-approval legislation
� Safety systems standards and regulation in the EU: State of the art
� Legal issues of market introduction of Intelligent Integrated Road Safety
Systems
� Ultra wide-band 24 GHz short range radar
� Societal aspects
� The different business cases
� User Outreach
� The eSafety Forum
This report describes for each of the 28 recommendations, the progress status, links to
ongoing national and European eSafety activities, and the planned activities for the area.
186

5.1.1 Accident Causation Data
Recommendation number and title:
1) Consolidate analyses from existing EU, Member State and industry road accident
data.
2) Develop jointly a European Accident Causation Database covering all EU
countries, and facilitate access to it.
Activity leader:
European Commission
Start of activities:
1) 2004
2) 2006
Background:
Although today there are different sources of accident statistics from the Member
States, no single consolidated accident causation database exists. In the US, the NHTSA
spends approximately $28 million annually on accident data. The European Union
spends considerably less, often in a fragmented way. Europe can, within two years, use
existing data sources to obtain a much clearer understanding of accident causation than
exists today. The aim is to:
o Establish a European network for accident analysis;
o Provide input for the European Road Safety Observatory;
o Provide a more scientific basis for the identification and evaluation of effective
safety functions;
o Enable the confirmation of the relevant best tests and test procedures for
safety, performance, and ease of use;
o Enable the evaluation of effective countermeasures.
Status:
Information on national and international data has been disseminated to the different
eSafety Working Groups. However, the comparison of data is difficult and several of the
WGs are investigating how to best make use of this data.
The WG on Implementation Road Maps has compiled some of the results in order to list
technologies according to the impact on road safety in Europe. The Final Report and
Recommendations of the Implementation Road Maps WG is available on
http://www.esafetysupport.org/download/working_groups/Final_Report_181005.pdf
The WG on Accident Causation Data analysed available European data sources and
produced its Final Report, including recommendations for further actions, in December
2004 (see section eSafety Working Group).
187

European R&D:
APROSYS (www.aprosys.com)
MAIDS (www.bmf.co.uk/maids/report.pdf)
PENDANT (www.mechanik.tu-graz.ac.at/pendant)
CARE (europa.eu.int/comm/transport/care/index_en.htm)
IRTAD (www.bast.de/htdocs/fachthemen/irtad/index.htm)
HUMANIST (www.noehumanist.org)
SAFETYNET (safetynet.swov.nl)
ETAC
RISER (www.erf.be/section/ep/riser)
TRACE (www.trace-project.org/)
National activities:
A number of data collection activities exist in the Member States or internationally. The
goal is to consolidate and align this data on a European level. Examples of data sources
are:
� National: FARS, GDV, ITARDA, DEKRA, NASS, GIDAS, INRETS, INSIA,
ELASIS, MICKEY, VALT, LAB
� International: WHO, RIDER, OTS, CCIS, STAIRS, VOLVO, BMW, VW, DC,
EACS
eSafety Working Groups:
The Accident Causation Working Group carried out a detailed analysis of existing data
sources.
• The data sources were assessed on three criteria, which yielded a mixed picture.
• The task to interrogate these data sources was defined. One element of this is
the development of the research questions that need to be answered. To help in
this and to enhance transparency, a multi-stakeholder workshop was held on 30
June 2004. The questions that need to be answered during the interrogation of
existing data sources have been developed in a report, available on
http://www.esafetysupport.org/en/esafety_activities/esafety_working_groups/a
ccident_causation_analysis_.htm.
• A strong recommendation was made that the task of interrogation of the existing
data sources be included in a project call in the near future.
The working group also tried to ensure that duplication of effort was avoided by forging
good links with other projects and initiatives. This includes: MAIDS, ETAC, SafetyNet,
APROSYS, and a number of national initiatives.
The above analysis resulted in the clear identification of the need for resources to carry
out this interrogation. This was taken into consideration in appropriate call of FP6,
leading to the creation of the project TRACE (TRaffic Accident Causation in Europe).
188

The general objective of the TRACE project is to provide the scientific community, the
stakeholders, the suppliers, the vehicle industry and the other Integrated Safety program
participants with a global overview of the road accident causation issues in Europe, and
possibly overseas, based on the analysis of any and all current available databases which
include accident, injury, insurance, medical and exposure data (including driver behaviour
in normal driving conditions). The idea is to identify, characterise and quantify the nature
of risk factors, groups at risk, specific conflict driving situations and accident situations;
and to estimate the safety benefits of a selection of technology-based safety functions.
Expected outcomes are essentially reports.
Beside this, TRACE proposes three different research angles for the definition and the
characterization of accident causation factors, TRACE proposes to improve the methods
actually used in accident analysis (diagnosis and evaluation). And finally, TRACE intends
to base the analyses on available, reliable and accessible existing and on-going databases
(access to which will be greatly facilitated by a series of partners highly experienced in
safety analysis, coming from 8 different countries and having access to different kinds of
databases, in-depth or regional or national statistics in their own country, and for some
of them in additional countries).
A progress report on the achievement of the project will be produced at the beginning of
2007, and it will be available online on
http://www.esafetysupport.org/en/esafety_activities/related_projects/research_and_de
velopment/trace.htm.
Using the results of Accident Causation Data WG is also a key area for the Road Map
WG.
Future actions:
The project TRACE took over on task of continuing the Accident Causation Analysis
work as recommended by the R&D Working Group (greater emphasis and funding of
accident causation R&D including the analysis of present data and demographic aspects)
and the Implementation Road Maps Working Group, undertaking the specific tasks
related to accident causation outlined in the Accident Causation Analysis Working Group
recommendations. The first results of the project will be available at the beginning of
2007.
The longer term recommendation of the eSafety Forum to define a common format and
structure for future accident data is being led by SafetyNet and accident causation
analysis working group members are in touch with this work and would wish to remain
so.
Contacts:
Mr Yves Page, yves.page@lab-france.com
189

5.1.2 Impact assessment of safety systems
Recommendation number and title:
3) Develop a methodology to assess the potential impact of intelligent integrated
road safety technologies in Europe. Develop a validation methodology and
procedures for vehicles equipped with intelligent integrated road safety systems.
Activity leader:
Automotive industry
Start of activities:
2005
Background:
For each relevant eSafety system the following facts are to be considered:
- Accident fatalities to be affected (Accident causation data);
- Expected change in fatalities;
- Other benefit / side effects;
- Approximation for In Vehicle cost average;
- Approximation for cost of road and information / Infrastructure;
- Technical capability;
- Regulatory issues (obstacles and updated regulations needed);
- Estimation for implementation issues / different classes of vehicles;
- Fleet composition in market up to 2010.
These items are combined into an eSafety MATRIX, which combines all relevant
information to enable evaluation of the realistic impact of eSafety systems. This work is
undertaken by the Implementation Road Maps Working Group.
Status:
The ongoing work aims in the short term, to analyse accident causation data using the
existing European databases. This analysis can then be used for defining the most
effective countermeasures. In the long term, the group is expected to make
recommendations for further actions that are required for effective, homogeneous
accident causation data collection and analysis, liaising with the Integrated Project
SafetyNet.
An exploratory study on the potential socio-economic impact of the introduction of
Intelligent Safety Systems in Road Vehicles (SEISS) was completed in January 2005. The
socio-economic impact was preliminarily estimated for a certain number of cases
showing a positive Benefit-Cost ratio in the long term.
190

A survey on “Incentives schemes applied by the Member States in the Transportation
Sector” was also conducted in 2005 so as to design a strategy to support the adoption of
eSafety. This survey collected experiences from the Member States in the application of
financial or fiscal control incentives in the transportations field as an instrument to speed
up the introduction of improved or new technologies, especially in conjunction with
regulatory requirements.
Currently two studies are investigating the safety effects of intelligent vehicle safety
systems. TRACE utilises the accident causation approach whereas eIMPACT utilises the
behavioural effects approach. The work of the projects is coordinated by constant
information exchange, common workshops and other co-operation. Both projects are
expected to produce results in 2007. In addition, PReVAL assesses the safety effects of
the PReVENT systems within the project.
In close liaison with the Implementation Road Maps Working Group, eSafetySupport
has developed a database on the safety and other effects of intelligent vehicle safety
systems, which was opened in the summer of 2006 and is being constantly updated with
new research results. The database is at http://www.esafety-effects-database.org
European R&D:
SafetyNet (http://safetynet.swov.nl/)
PReVENT (http://www.prevent-ip.org) including PReVAL
TRACE (http://www.trace-project.org/)
eIMPACT (http://www.eimpact.info/)
National activities:
(not available)
eSafety Working Groups:
The Working Group on Accident Causation collected information on the existing EU,
Member State and industry road accident databases. A multi-stakeholder workshop was
held on 30 June 2004 to understand how a more effective use can be made of existing
accident causation databases. The working group also tried to ensure that duplication of
effort was avoided by forging good links with other projects and initiatives. This
includes:
MAIDS, ETAC, SafetyNet, APROSYS, and a number of national initiatives.
The Implementation Road Maps Working Group has included a review of existing
information on the safety effects of intelligent vehicle safety systems in the Working
Group report in 2005. This has been used as the basis for the more comprehensive
eSafety effects database (see above).
Future actions:
The safety effects database is to be constantly updated. Studies are needed to estimate the
safety impacts of such intelligent vehicle systems, where reliable information is not yet
available.
Contacts:
Prof Risto Kulmala, VTT, risto.kulmala@vtt.fi
191

Recommendation number and title:
4) Set up a coordinated validation framework for operational tests in the Member
States.
Activity leader:
EuroNCAP
Start of activities:
2006
Background:
The ADAS development methodology and procedures are part of the Code of Practice
(CoP) that has been published by the IP PReVENT Response 3 consortium, (see
Recommendation 20). The CoP contains descriptions of development procedures for
intelligent vehicle safety systems in order for the equipment or vehicle manufacturers to
show that they respect their duty of care. The Code of Practice should be considered as a
self commitment and not as a standard, which means that it is up to the industry player
to follow it and adapt it to its research and development internal process. This work will
influence the future standardisation activities within the field of ADAS once the
technologies get more mature. The CoP is a basis to the development of a consistent
validation framework.
Status:
The User Outreach Working Group has discussed how methods from traditional car
testing could be transferred to testing of eSafety technologies. The results will be
available in the final version of the UOWG recommendations at the beginning of 2007.
Some concrete testing has been performed for example, for ESC systems. The
automotive press has published the results and the plan is to broaden tests to include
more eSafety technologies in the future.
RESPONSE 3 (PReVENT) drafted a Code of Practice for the development and testing
of ADAS for the European industry. Translating the key issues of ‘reasonable safety’ and
‘duty of care’ the CoP will give a basis for definition of ‘safe’ ADAS development and
testing, also from a legal point of view (see Recommendation 20).
European R&D:
RESPONSE 3 (PReVENT)
(www.prevent-ip.org/en/prevent_subprojects/horizontal_activities/response_3/)
PReVAL (PReVENT)
(www.prevent-ip.org/en/prevent_subprojects/horizontal_activities/preval/)
ASTE study (Active Safety Testing in Europe)
National activities:
“Beyond EuroNCAP”
eSafety Working Groups:
192

The User Outreach Working Group coped with this issue and the results will be available
in the final version of the UOWG recommendations at the beginning of 2007.
Future actions:
A feasibility study on independent testing programs for ICT-based safety systems called
ASTE (Active Safety Testing in Europe) was launched by the European Commission on
2006. The study was launched on 22 November and the outcome is expected in August
2007. The results of the study will be a list of recommendations and next steps for the
creation of testing programs.
Within PReVENT, the phase 3 PReVAL subproject which started in September 2006
will propose a series of assessment procedures for the validation of preventive and active
safety applications. The procedures are issued from best practice within the PReVENT
consortium and will be applied to a limited number of PReVENT experimental vehicles.
As a final result, PReVAL will issue a set of recommendations for future assessment
program in January 2008.
One of the priorities of FP7 will be the launch of Field Operational Tests, large-scale test
programmes aiming at a comprehensive assessment of the efficiency, quality, robustness
and user-friendliness of ICT solutions for smarter, safer and cleaner vehicles and realtime
network management. EuroNCAP started some activities on assessment of the
safety performance of some of the most popular cars sold in Europe from an eSafety
perspective concretely testing car equipped with ESC systems. The expected impact will
be to demonstrate, analyse and provide proof-of-concept to all stakeholders of the
impact of intelligent vehicle systems and co-operative systems on the reduction of traffic
accidents, on driver behaviour and on transport efficiency.
Contacts:
Mr Juhani Jaaskelainen, European Commission, INFSO-eSafety@ec.europa.eu
http://www.europa.eu.int/information_society/programmes/esafety/index_en.htm
Mr Johan Scholliers, VTT, Johan.Scholliers@vtt.fi
193

5.1.3 Human-Machine Interaction
Recommendation number and title:
5) Assess the reports by the Member States on the Commission recommendation,
and decide on further actions. Urgent action is needed to assess the risk of
portable (nomadic) devices.
6) Develop workload assessment, testing and certification methodology for complex
in-vehicle working environments.
Activity leader:
5) European Commission
6) Research institutes
Start of activities:
5) 2003
6) 2006
Background:
The majority of road accidents (90-95%) are caused by human errors. More recent data
has identified inattention (including distraction, "looked but did not see", and falling
asleep at the wheel) as the primary cause of accidents, accounting for at least 25% of the
crashes. Today, a wide range of Advanced Driver Assistance Systems (ADAS) is being
developed for enhancing the driver's perception of the hazards, and/or partly automating
the driving task. The safety impact of these systems is to a great extent determined by
their interaction with the driver. For example, in order to efficiently support the driver in
avoiding crashing into a front obstacle, it is crucial that the warning/feedback given by
the system intuitively generates the appropriate response (e.g. a safe avoidance
manoeuvre). The introduction of new safety functions may induce longer-term changes
in driver behaviour. This type of behavioural change, often referred to as behavioural
adaptation, may significantly affect the actual (as compared to the expected) safety
benefits of a safety measure, both in positive and negative directions.
Status:
The Working Group on HMI has identified and listed HMI-related problems from
available Member State reports and other relevant sources independently from the state
of the art of present technologies. This list of HMI-related problems has been clustered
around the following six thematic areas:
1. Risks and benefits
2. Users
3. Markets/Implementation
4. Research
5. Nomadic devices
6. Criteria and Verification Procedures on HMI
European R&D:
194

AIDE (www.aide-eu.org)
COMUNICAR (www.comunicar-eu.org)
EUCLIDE (www.euclide-eu.org)
SAVE (www.iao.fraunhofer.de/Projects/SAVE/save/saveinit.htm)
HUMANIST (www.noehumanist.org)
COST 352 (www.cost.cordis.lu)
National activities:
(not available)
eSafety Working Groups:
To reduce the risks associated with the new in-car information, entertainment and safety
systems, the EU published in 1999 a European Statement of Principles (ESoP) for
Information and Communication Systems. The eSafety Working Group on HMI was
established in February 2003 within the eSafety initiative. Following the
recommendations of the eSafety Report, the Working Group on HMI considered
amendment and development of the existing EU Statement of Principles (ESoP), taking
account of views expressed by Member States and including issues of HMI safety
assessment and nomadic and after-market devices.
The Human-Machine Interaction Working Group assessed the technical progress in
collaboration with the industry and the Member States, and has proposed a series of
further measures on HMI in their final report of 2005.
HMI recommendations from the final report include:
Producers should:
o Apply good design principles
o Supply a secure fitting kit (if not built-in)
o Provide clear instructions for product use
o Disable functions not intended to be accessed while driving
Vehicle manufacturers, device manufacturers and service providers should:
o Co-operate to develop smart interfaces
Member States should:
o Take measures to ensure secure fixing of devices
o Take actions on the misuse of visual entertainment systems (e.g. TV, video,
games)
European Commission should:
o Further develop and promote the European Statement of Principles on HMI
195

The EC has acted on one of the recommendations and formed an Expert Group to
update the European Statement of Principles (ESoP) on HMI. A new version of the
ESoP was drafted, taking into account national experiences and industry best practices,
along with Recommendations on Safe Use and Implementation Recommendations.
These three documents were reviewed prior to being sent to the EU Member States, the
European Parliament and the European Council. They are being published as an EC
Recommendation during 2006.
Further developments are also being made by the Nomadic Device Forum, which was
launched in June 2005 by the AIDE project. The Forum will address, amongst other
issues, the safety threat Nomadic devices could pose and how the ESoP should be
applied.
Future actions:
The Working Group on R&D has identified the following research needs for this area:
◊ Investigate aspects of collective/interactive road use
◊ Improve common understanding of road traffic
◊ Improve understanding of error compensation mechanisms
◊ Investigate adaptation of driver behaviour to new technological systems
◊ Investigate acceptability of technologies (definition of acceptability/criteria of
acceptance)
Contacts:
Mrs Annie Pauzie, INRETS, annie.pauzie@inrets.fr
Mr Alan Stevens, TRL, astevens@trl.co.uk
Mr Christhard Gelau, BASt, gelau@bast.de
196

5.1.4 Road Map for Intelligent Integrated Safety
Recommendation number and title:
7a) Develop Road Maps with technical steps and economic implications for the
introduction of intelligent integrated road safety systems in Europe.
7b) The public sector Road Maps should indicate the investments required for
improvements in the road networks and information infrastructure.
Activity leader:
7a) Automotive industry
7b) Road authorities
Start of activities:
7a) 2003
7b) 2003
Background:
The market introduction of Intelligent Vehicle Safety Systems involves policy,
technological, societal, business, legal and consumer aspects. From the public sector
point of view it has to be possible to estimate the market introduction timetable and to
use this information to plan for investments and to determine what other measures are
required for enabling take-up. Therefore, there is a need to produce road maps for
eSafety technologies to support the development of activities in other eSafety Working
Groups. Its aim is to draft some simplified implementation road maps, and details such
as essential implementation issues for the systems selected were submitted in 2004. Based
on the results of the Working Group on Implementation Road Maps, all parties can
think about the business case as well as the public sector budget implications for
implementing different eSafety systems. Chances and obstacles will be clearly identified
for all involved parties and options for enhancement of the process can be found.
Status:
Tables have been produced for autonomous vehicle-based systems as well as the vehicle
and infrastructure based systems of eCall, extended environmental information, RTTI,
dynamic traffic management (VMS), local danger warning, and Speed Alert. The tables
will be validated in consultation with the key stakeholders. A table has also been drafted
showing the eSafety functions against their technical prerequisites.
European R&D:
The projects eIMPACT and TRACE are expected to provide more information on the
safety effects of intelligent vehicle safety systems. A benchmarking study on the
promotion of Intelligent Vehicles Safety Systems is expected to provide information on
the best approaches to accelerate the deployment of the systems.
TRACE (http://www.trace-project.org/)
eIMPACT (http://www.eimpact.info/)
197

National activities:
The Implementation Road Maps Working Group has started a survey concerning the
deployment of the road maps in Europe on the national level. The results are expected in
2007.
eSafety Working Groups:
The Implementation Road Maps Working Group of the eSafety Forum commenced its
activities in July 2003.The objectives of the Implementation Road Maps Working Group
were:
◊ To identify the technical and economical potentials of the industry as well as the
topics and time table for infrastructure improvements by the public sector with
regard to eSafety systems capable of affecting road fatalities in Europe by 2010;
◊ To develop regularly reviewed road map, which focuses technological steps and
economic implication models for introduction of intelligent integrated road safety
systems as well as the required improvements in road and information
infrastructure
After a collection period for all available information and sources concerning eSafety
relevant systems, a suitable structure was found in defining vehicle based systems as well
as infrastructure based systems and combined solutions like eCall. The evaluation of
these different systems has reflected the following aspects:
◊ Accidents/fatalities to be affected
◊ % change in accidents expected
◊ other side effects/comfort functions
◊ cost of in–vehicle systems
◊ cost for infrastructure systems (investment/maintenance)
◊ cost for information infrastructure (investment/maintenance)
◊ year of technical readiness
◊ year of implementation readiness
◊ user acceptance and willingness to pay
◊ year of implementation by regulation
◊ specific implementation issues
◊ estimation of cars equipped with at 2010 / 2020
◊ other actors involved for implementation
Not all questions could be appropriately answered but it was possible to create a table of
generally prioritized systems, which will have a reasonable impact of the number of
fatalities and with a reasonable deployment for the timeframe, which is on focus.
The priority vehicle based systems are:
◊ ESP (Electronic Stability Program)
◊ Blind spot monitoring
◊ Adaptive head lights
◊ Obstacle & collision warning
◊ Lane departure warning
198

The priority infrastructure-related systems are:
◊ eCall
◊ Extended environmental information (Extended FCD)
◊ RTTI (Real-time Travel and Traffic Information)
◊ Dynamic traffic management
◊ Local danger warning
◊ Speed Alert
One key question is how to promote the deployment rate of these systems in future.
There are also differences in feasibility between vehicle-based systems and more
infrastructure / or mixed systems within the business case. Different incentives are likely
to enhance the customer awareness for eSafety features. For each priority system, two
market penetration forecasts were estimated, one based on “business as usual”
conditions and the other based on incentives and other measures to promote the
deployment of the system.
The potential safety effects of the systems were estimated based on research as well as
expert assessments using German accident statistics and the European CARE accident
data base.
The Working Group will continue its work by monitoring the deployment of the
implementation road maps, updating the road maps and making the road maps more
detailed with the help of targeted workshops with key stakeholders.
Future actions:
The following recommendations were given for in-vehicle systems:
a. The automobile industry, the EC, the Member States and other stakeholders should
enhance the customer awareness of the safety benefits of such systems in vehicles
through well structured and harmonized European campaigns;
b. The Member States and insurance companies should give financial/fiscal incentives
to customers to buy vehicles equipped with such systems. For this purpose, the
discussion should start without further delay to clarify the possibility for incentives
given by insurance companies or public agencies;
c. All stakeholders should develop feasible sustainable business models for each
application on the principle that those who benefit from the introduction in the form
of reduced accident-related costs should share these benefits with those who have to
carry the investments and costs. These should also cover nomadic devices.
The following recommendations were given for autonomous vehicle systems:
To increase and accelerate the market penetration of eSafety systems with highest safety
benefits, such as ESC:
d. EuroNCAP should incorporate such systems into their rating as soon as proven
technology and safety benefit data becomes available, and the functionality of the
systems can be adequately tested. ESC and Speed Limiter are on the list today;
e. The European Commission and the Member States should consider regulatory
actions (such as making a system mandatory equipment in new vehicles) only as a last
option, when such action is judged as essential and beneficial for both industrial and
public stakeholders. Socio-economic reasons and respecting the principle of
199

subsidiarity are other important decision criteria. Voluntary solutions should be
favoured;
f. The Member States and the industry should follow the recommendations of the HMI
(Human Machine Interaction) working group to ensure future user acceptance and a
safe application and function of the systems during their whole life cycle;
g. The automobile industry, the EC, the Member States and other stakeholders should
continue the R&D effort to develop new technologies and solutions for in-vehicle
safety systems as well as to evaluate the effects of eSafety system on safety, economy
and employment.
The following recommendations are given for infrastructure-related systems:
In order to increase and accelerate the deployment of safety beneficial infrastructurerelated
eSafety systems:
h. The Member States should ensure the deployment of socio-economically feasible
systems and services according to their responsibility and in line with the
requirements accepted on the European level.
i. The European Commission should support the deployment of infrastructure related
systems on the TERN as well as other key parts of the road networks with the
instruments at their disposal (e.g. TEN-T programme).
j. The industry, European Commission and the Member States should together take
actions to ensure that digital maps with the information required by the eSafety
systems would be developed for all roads in the Member States.
k. The European Commission and the Member States should agree on actions and
instruments to increase the willingness of countries and regions to take on the role as
“early adopters” for eSafety systems.
l. The European Commission and the Member States should continue R&D efforts to
develop new technologies and solutions for infrastructure-related safety systems as
well as to evaluate the effects of such systems on safety and other socio-economic
factors.
m. Concerning eCall, the European Commission, the Member States and the industry
should follow the recommendations of the eCall Driving Group.
n. Concerning RTTI, the European Commission, the Member States and the industry
should follow the recommendations of the RTTI Working Group.
o. Concerning dynamic traffic management and local danger warnings, the road
authorities and operators should develop together a European vision and strategy for
the deployment and operation of dynamic traffic management and local danger
warning systems in co-operation with vehicle and telecommunications industry.
p. Concerning speed alert, the European
Commission and the other stakeholders should
solve the currently open issues and utilise the
implementation roadmap produced by the
SpeedAlert project.
Contacts:
Mr Risto Kulmala, VTT, risto.kulmala@vtt.fi
Mr Hans-Jürgen Mäurer, DEKRA, hans-juergen.maeurer@dekra.com
200

5.1.5 Intelligent Integrated Road Safety Systems including ADAS
Recommendation number and title:
8) Analyse existing accident causation data and possible countermeasures and
determine clear goals and priorities for further RTD.
Activity leader:
Automotive industry
Start of activities:
2003
Background:
More than half of the R&D efforts analysed focus on electronic systems and enabling
technologies for accident prevention and protection systems within vehicles. From the
analyses it emerges clearly that the present European “eSafety research activities” do not
reflect the necessary systems approach. Research activities in accident causation, road and
telecommunications infrastructures; post accident call and issues around cost benefit
analysis and efficacy of safety measures need more R&D investment. European research
activities should be structured to be complementary to activities in other regions (USA
and Japan).
Status:
The RTD Working Group presented its final results and recommendations at the eSafety
Forum Plenary Session held in June 2005. The group concluded that more work was
needed in accidentology, human factors, interoperable co-operative systems, ITS services
and also some non-technical issues. The group stressed the importance of an integrated
approach, and proposed the setting up of a Joint Technology Initiative on Co-operative
eSafety Systems as a vehicle for pushing the frontiers of the research forward. This
proposal evolved into the “Intelligent Car” flagship project of the Commission’s i2010
strategy. These recommendations were taken into account and a set of projects was
launched in the call 4 of FP6.
During April-May 2006, DG INFSO organised targeted expert meetings to develop and
formulate recommendations and priorities for R&D in FP7 on the following five topics:
• Mobility Services for People
• Mobility Services for Goods
• Intelligent Vehicle Systems
• Cooperative Systems
• Field Operational Tests
In 2006, to contribute to the FP7 Work programme on ICT for Mobility, the Working
Group on Research and Development engaged in a sixth workshop where the
recommendations of the five areas were reported, discussed and set in relation with the
objectives to improve road transport and European industrial competitiveness and issued
a document: the “Stakeholders’ contribution to the Development of FP7
Workprogramme on ICT for Mobility”. This document declares the objectives of future
research to further develop and deploy technologies, functions and services to enhance
201

traffic safety, efficiency and reduce the impact on the environment. Additionally,
“horizontal” aspects such as standards, and common communication links were
identified as issues belonging to the research agenda.
A version of this document was made available on the web site of DG INFSO for a
broad public consultation. The Working Group RTD has reviewed and assessed some 33
written contributions received. The document was amended accordingly and the final
version is now available on the website
http://www.esafetysupport.org/en/esafety_activities/esafety_working_groups/research
_and_development_.htm.
European R&D:
(See Recommendation 1 & 2)
National activities:
(See Recommendation 1 & 2)
eSafety Working Groups:
The Working Group on Research and Development has the goal to identify and map the
Regional, National and European research, technology and demonstration projects that
may contribute to addressing the recommendations of the High Level Group on eSafety.
The Working Group has established mechanisms for monitoring, aligning and steering
such projects so as to maximize synergies and disseminate results. It also identifies the
priorities for research areas for integrated European research, technology and
demonstration projects in the field of eSafety.
The main tasks of the RTD WG for 2006 were to:
• Advise, support, monitor and review the development, implementation and
outcome of the Strategic Research Agenda for “ICT for Mobility”, FP7.
• Promote the RTD pillar of the Intelligent Car Initiative.
• Survey and support the activities and their synergies at National and EU level.
• Promote. Monitor and Guide the R&D contribution to the:
o achievement of Safe, Clean, Efficient and Secure Road Traffic and
Transport;
o global competitiveness of the EU Industry.
As a contribution to the FP7 Work programme on ICT for Mobility the working group
has issued the document “Stakeholders’ contribution to the Development of FP7
Workprogramme on ICT for Mobility”, reviewing the recommendations on R&D in FP7
as reported from five expert workshops, arranged by DG INFSO, on the following five
topics (see Status):
• Mobility Services for People
• Mobility Services for Goods
• Intelligent Vehicle Systems
• Cooperative Systems
• Field Operational Tests
Future actions:
202

The priorities identified in the document issued by the RTD WG will be taken into
consideration into the forthcoming FP7, where, together with continuing ICT research in
Intelligent Vehicle Systems whose key targets are increased performance and reliability as
well as to make cars cleaner, research in mobility services for people, aiming at ICT for
‘always-on’ mobility services, and research in mobility services for goods targeting safer,
more secure, efficient and environment-friendly ICT-based freight transport solutions in
both urban and long-haul operations, will be considered for funding. Also ICT research
in Co-operative Systems will be continued, delivering advanced, reliable, fast and secure
vehicle-to-vehicle and vehicle-to-infrastructure communication for new functionalities,
real-time traffic management and new levels of support to active safety systems in
vehicles and to the driver. One priority will also be the funding of large-scale Field
Operational Tests aiming at a comprehensive assessment of the efficiency, quality,
robustness and user-friendliness of ICT solutions for smarter, safer and cleaner vehicles
and real-time network management.
Contacts:
Mr Ulf Palmquist (UP@EUCAR.BE).
203

Recommendation number and title:
9) Where necessary, develop specifications for interfaces and communications
protocols for vehicle-to-vehicle and vehicle-to-infrastructure communications.
Activity leader:
Multi-sector organisation
Start of activities:
2004
Background:
Co-operative systems are based on two-way communications, with interaction in real
time. Thus vehicles may communicate directly with one another, so that a driver knows
for example if another vehicle is on a conflicting course, or vehicles may provide data
directly to a traffic management centre and receive individual guidance and support in
return. These systems can greatly extend the driver’s range of perception, providing
relevant information on the behaviour of traffic in general and neighbouring vehicles in
particular beyond the range of vision. Cooperative Systems (as an extension to
autonomous or stand-alone systems), in which the vehicles communicate with each other
and the infrastructure, have the potential to greatly increase the quality and reliability of
information available about the vehicles, their location and the road environment,
enabling improved and new services for the road users.
Status:
Both Japan and the USA have invested heavily in R&D programmes for intelligent road
infrastructure and integrated vehicle-infrastructure systems. In Japan, the Advanced
Safety Vehicle (ASV) programme addresses vehicle-to-vehicle communication to avoid
crossing and right-turn collisions and accidents with pedestrians, while the new
Advanced Cruise-Assist Highway Systems (AHS) programme is looking at infrastructuresupported
safety systems using DSRC and digital roadmaps. Japan has recently set up an
international Vehicle Safety Committee to achieve global standards of vehicle safety, in
co-operation with Europe and the USA.
In the USA, the Intelligent Vehicle Initiative (IVI) is aimed at encouraging driverassistance
technologies, such as collision avoidance systems and diagnostics systems, and
the recently-announced VII (Vehicle-Infrastructure Integration) programme is aimed at
vehicle-infrastructure communication, e.g. for intersection control. The US DSRC
vehicle-road communication system is intended to link vehicles with the Internet.
The IST 4th Call included eSafety Co-operative Systems on Road Transport with the
objective to develop and demonstrate Co-operative systems for road transport that will
make transport more efficient and effective, safer and more environmentally friendly. A
set of projects covering this topic and coping with different aspects of advanced
communication concepts was launched in 2006 (CVIS, Safespot, Coopers,
COM2REACT, Cover, Goodroute, Highway, MORYNE, RESPOSIT, SEVECOM,
COMeSafety).
204

The COMeSafety Project supports the eSafety Forum with respect to all issues related to
vehicle-to-vehicle and vehicle-to-infrastructure communications as the basis for cooperative
intelligent road transport systems, providing a platform for both the exchange
of information and the presentation of results.
European R&D:
- ADASE II (http://www.crfproject-eu.org/menu.asp?ind=adasefolder&nome=
ADASE%20II)
- GST (http://www.gstproject.org/)
- CVIS (http://www.cvisproject.org/)
- Safespot (http://www.safespot-eu.org/)
- Coopers (http://www.coopers-ip.eu/)
- COM2REACT (http://www.com2react-project.org/)
- Cover (http://www.ist-cover.eu/)
- Goodroute (http://www.goodroute-eu.org/)
- Highway (http://www.ist-highway.org/)
- MORYNE (http://www.fp6-moryne.org/)
- RESPOSIT (http://www.ist-reposit.org/)
- SEVECOM (http://www.sevecom.org/)
- COMeSafety (http://www.comesafety.org/)
- CarTalk2000 project (www.cartalk2000.net)
- PReVENT project (WILLWARN, INTERSAFE subprojects) (http://www.preventip.org/)
- Car-to-Car Communications Consortium (German industry group)
- ROADSENSE project (http://www.cranfield.ac.uk/sme/amac/c2vip/roadsense/)
National activities:
- INVENT programme (Germany)
- PREDIT programme, ARCOS project (France)
- FleetNet project (DaimlerChrysler)
- SUMMITS project (NL, TNO)
- Roads for the Future (NL, RWS)
- Traffimatics project - CVHS (UK)
eSafety Working Groups:
The objectives of eSafety Working Group Communication, established in fall 2005, are
to cover all communication technologies and modes relevant for the general mission of
safety, including V2V, V2I, and I2I.
205

The working group copes with spectrum issues, helping the Commission with CEPT and
Radio Spectrum Committee (RSC), standardisation, working together with Intelligent
Transportation Systems Steering Group (ITSSG) towards ETSI, CEN and ISO, and
international cooperation, i.e. establishing contacts to similar groups in the US and Japan
to coordinate international issues in the work areas
Future actions:
In FP7 ICT research in co-operative Systems will be continued, delivering advanced,
reliable, fast and secure vehicle-to-vehicle and vehicle-to-infrastructure communication
for new functionalities, real-time traffic management and new levels of support to active
safety systems in vehicles and to the driver. By combining technologies such as accurate
positioning and improved sensor networking, research is expected to lead towards “zeroaccident”
scenarios. An increasing number of vehicles with ICT-links to the transport
infrastructure will make it possible optimise traffic management at large scale.
This will help Europe's transport industry become the world leader in the emerging area
of Co-operative Systems and offer road and network operator’s new tools to achieve
higher operational performance.
Contacts:
Mr Juhani Jaaskelainen, European Commission, INFSO-eSafety@ec.europa.eu
http://www.europa.eu.int/information_society/programmes/esafety/index_en.htm
206

Recommendation number and title:
10) Pursue international cooperation.
Activity leader:
European Commission
Start of activities:
2003
Background:
International collaboration is seen as an important and essential part of the eSafety
initiative. It is needed to strengthen the synergies and to avoid duplication with work that
is taking place in other regions, in particular the regions playing a leading role in
automotive technology (North America and Japan). The problems associated with the
development and market introduction of active safety systems are quite similar in the
different regions. International Cooperation has the potential of avoiding the duplication
of efforts of both the industry and the public sectors, and avoiding fragmentation of
markets through different technical or regulatory approaches. International collaboration
should also lead to the proliferation of functionally compatible systems through
standardisation, harmonisation and open platforms, thus benefiting the automotive
industry, its suppliers and the travelling public at large.
Status:
Priority-defining work has been performed to focus international cooperation on eSafety
issues of international importance. This work is done in close cooperation with key
stakeholders from the USA, Japan, China, India, Korea, and Australia. The next step is to
involve new emerging markets where safety has been a key issue for long and where
eSafety now has become a major priority. These are countries like Brazil, Russia, and
South Africa.
European R&D:
EU-India – cooperation on eSafety (http://www.euindia.info/)
SIMBA – International cooperation on road transport research
(http://www.simbaproject.org/)
207

National activities:
(not available)
eSafety Working Groups:
The International Cooperation Working Group supports the dialogue at the international
level, coordinates the international aspects of the work of the other eSafety Forum
Working Groups and identifies topics/issues where this cooperation is lacking or should
be strengthened. The International Cooperation Working Group will make the necessary
recommendations to accelerate the exchange of information on priority topics and
suggest the way forward. The working group expects to cover especially Human-Machine
Interaction, certification and testing methodology and procedures, harmonisation and
standardisation, legal issues, impact and socio-economic benefit analysis and
benchmarking/best practise.
The Working Group met in 2004 in Parma. Participants from Europe, US and Japan
discussed the international aspects of the eSafety initiative and defined a number of
priority fields to be discussed within the eSafety Forum, namely:
� Consolidation of accident data
� Global impact assessment of technologies
� Global principles for HMI
� Vehicle-Vehicle and Vehicle-Infrastructure specifications
� Standardisation and certification
� Legal issues
� Socio economic benefits
� Exchange of “Best Practice” and outreach
A Working Group meeting was held in 2004 in Nagoya during the ITS World Congress.
The topics discussed were:
� Review of Global eSafety Recommendations
� Summary of eSafety activities in Europe
� Outcome of the 25 September 2004 High Level Plenary Meeting in Brussels
� Update on eScope and eSafety meeting calendar, and relevant events in 2005
� eSafety update from Japan and the US
� Progress on International Cooperation
During the ITS World Congress in San Francisco the International Cooperation Working
Group held its 6 th meeting. The agenda included an update on the eSafety Progress in
Europe, information on global activities (USA, Japan, China and Australia) and HMI
activities and incentives to support deployment of eSafety. The discussion centred on
regional eSafety developments and on improving eSafety systems.
The last meeting of the Working Group was during the ITS World Congress in London
12 October 2006. The topic for discussion was eSafety awareness raising and
presentations were made by Europe (from the European Commission and the
eSafetyAware! platform) US, Japan, China, and India.
208

Future actions:
A questionnaire was sent to 250 eSafety stakeholders in October 2006 to get input to the
priorities and future directions for the international cooperation on eSafety. The result
was presented at the eSafety Forum Plenary 8 November 2006. A draft ToR has been
produced and will be discussed by the eSafety Forum to define the future activities of the
International Cooperation Working Group.
Contacts:
Mr Jacob Bangsgaard, j.bangsgaard@mail.ertico.com
209

5.1.6 The European Safety Map database
Recommendation number and title:
11) Define requirements for a European digital road map database, with agreed road
safety attributes. Create a public-private partnership to produce, maintain certify
and distribute this database.
Activity leader:
Mapping industry
Start of activities:
2004
Background:
The digital road map database should be made available for all users at affordable prices
(possibly free of charge). National, local and regional authorities and operators should
provide safety-related data on road configurations within their networks, with target
dates for implementation. This recommendation can be split into a few milestones:
- Definition of a safety-enabled map format;
- Definition of an updating mechanism to increase the map updating
frequency;
- Definition of map database interface with standardized architecture in the
vehicle;
- Definition
mechanisms;
of public-private automatic information exchange
- Definition of new map collection mechanisms.
Status:
MAPS&ADAS (www.ip-prevent.com) develops, tests and validates a standard method
for the collection, maintenance, certification and provision of safety related content for
in-vehicle map databases. Additionally, it has developed, tested and validated a standard
interface to provide different ADAS applications access to map and vehicle positioning
data provided by one central unit (either stand-alone or part of a navigation system). The
results of the MAPS&ADAS already have proven to be important for the Digital Map
Working Group. It supplied the list of safety attributes and determined priorities. The
survey for European safety attributes inventory (18 European countries) conducted
within the MAPS&ADAS is of high importance for the implementation of Phase 1
(eSafety Digital Maps Working Group recommendations). MAPS&ADAS also explored
safety attributes qualification scheme and associated business model to initiate work on
Phase 2 (eSafety Digital Maps Working Group recommendations).
210

At its 24 June 2005 meeting, The European Council’s Environment Committee reached
a unanimous policy agreement on the adoption of a draft of the INSPIRE (Infrastructure
for Spatial Information in Europe) Directive, which creates a legal framework for the
establishment and operation of a geographical information infrastructure in Europe. Its
purpose is twofold: First, to make top-quality geographical data available at all levels
across the European Union, in order to better implement community policies; and,
second, to give the public access to the information.
European R&D:
The NextMAP project (2001-2002 - www.ertico.com/nextmap) identified requirements
for the future digital map, based on functional requirements of anticipated ADAS and
telematics applications, tested and evaluated the technical and economical feasibility of a
digital map based on this enhanced specification. One of the major outputs of NextMAP
is the contribution to the GDF standard by formulating a change request to the ISO
standard 14825-GDF. This proposal has been submitted to ISO/TC204/SWG3.1 in
2002 resulting in a new GDF 4.0 standard accepted in January 2004.
ActMAP (www.ertico.com/activiti/projects/actmap/home.htm) investigated and
developed dynamic incremental actualisation of digital map databases and has developed
a concept of delivery chain for map updates using a standard map update exchange
format. This work will result in a standardization proposal to ISO TC204/WG3.
EuroRoadS (eContent programme) (www.euroroads.org) is developing a common data
model and exchange format and online delivery tools for digital road databases. Focus is
on easing access to national survey and road administration data, to support pan-
European applications and products such as speed information, tolling, telematics,
ADAS and road management. When successful, EuroRoadS will facilitate the
standardised availability of road data. Safety attributes are part of it. EuroRoadS therefore
can facilitate the standardised availability of safety attributes.
The SpeedAlert (www.speedalert.org) project's main objectives are to harmonise the invehicle
speed alert concept definition and to identify and investigate the first priority
issues to be addressed at the European level, such as the collection, maintenance and
certification of speed limit information. One of the most important recommendations
defined by SpeedAlert address the crucial need to ensure procurement of European-wide
and up-to-date speed limit information.
HIGHWAY (www.ist-highway.org) is working on the architecture and specifications to
offer integrated safety and added-value services for both embedded in-vehicle and mobile
personal navigation systems. The work includes a user requirement analysis and the
design of the global system architecture. After finalisation of the detailed specifications
the implementation of prototypes will start followed by an extensive validation in 2007.
SafeMAP focuses on analysis of societal benefits of safety-related map data (in terms of
improvement of road traffic safety) and the feasibility and cost of inclusion of such data
in in-vehicle map databases.
211

FeedMAP is developing a framework that will easily detect map deviations based on
information from only a limited number of vehicles and quickly update the maps of all
other vehicles.
National activities:
(not available)
eSafety Working Groups:
The Digital Maps Working Group kicked off its activities on 18 April 2005. The Working
Group’s objectives include:
• Defining a business model for Public-Private cooperation, to ensure availability of
attributes relevant to road safety utilising digital maps; This model aims to support the
creation, maintenance, quality assurance and distribution of safety attributes that can
be integrated into the digital roadmap databases.
• Defining the requirements for digital map databases which contains road safetyrelated
attributes in addition to normal road map data.
The Working Group concluded its “Final Report-Recommendation “ in November
2005. The report outlines three phases that need to be implemented if safety attributes
are to become available to the mapping industry and are to be integrated into their digital
map databases to be utilised in all kinds of road safety applications. They are:
• Phase 1 – "COOPERATION": Supply of safety attributes in the form that they are
currently available at Public Authorities.
• Phase 2 – "QUALITY ASSURANCE: Standardisation of information provision and
output quality testing.
• Phase 3 – "OPTIMISATION": Standardisation of transfer format and transfer media
and optimisation of the transfer process.
Future actions:
The Working Group recommended, that it continues to act on behalf of the Steering
Committee of the eSafety Forum, undertaking on-going monitoring of the
implementation of all three workplan phases.
Further research can be done on automatic collection of data using map data in the cars.
Further business scenarios should be investigated especially for the implementation of
ADAS-enabled maps on the market.
Cooperation between public authorities and private location-based content providers for
the provision and maintenance of safety attributes is a key priority and is the major goal
of the ROSATTE initiative launched in 2006.
Contacts:
Mr Ad Bastiaansen, TeleAtlas, ad.bastiaansen@teleatlas.com
Mr Lievin Quoidbach, Navteq, lievin.quoidbach@navteq.com
Mr Vincent Blervaque, ERTICO, v.blervaque@mail.ertico.com
Mr Maxime Flament, ERTICO, m.flament@mail.ertico.com
212

5.1.7 Emergency Calls (e-Calls) and E-112
Recommendation number and title:
12) Adopt the Commission Recommendation on the introduction and
implementation of E-112 in Europe.
13) Establish a European Emergency Communications Forum to continue the
CGALIES work.
14) For in-vehicle emergency calls (e-Calls), establish data requirements and data
transfer protocols. Establish interfaces and e-Call routing and handling.
Activity leader:
European Commission
Start of activities:
2002
Background:
Deployment of the in vehicle emergency call (eCall) is a priority both for the industry and
the public sector. In cases where a vehicle is involved in an accident, an emergency Call,
or eCall can be initiated automatically, and accurate vehicle location and additional safetyrelated
information can be passed to the Public Service Answering Point (PSAP). Such
information cuts dramatically the emergency response times, saving lives and reducing
the consequences of serious injuries. eCall will use the single European emergency call
number E112. In order to facilitate the processing of location-enhanced emergency calls,
the Commission adopted a Recommendation that further emphasises the need to take
into account the in-vehicle emergency calls.
Status:
In its final report the eCall Driving Group presented a revised roll-out plan whose
realisation depends on the timely commitment of all stakeholders. This report also
includes performance and quality criteria to be met when implemented. The report is
available on the website: http://www.esafetysupport.org/en/esafety_activities/
esafety_working_groups/emergency_call_ecall.htm.
The eCall Road Map was updated in 2006:
213

Having recognised the absolute necessity that all eCall players agree on a common
functional objective and common project timing, the eCall DG has drafted a MoU which
is open for signature and has been signed by some of the main stakeholders. This MoU
sets the objectives and outlines the route to complete the launch phase of the eCall
project by 2009. The European Commission, ERTICO, and ACEA signed the MoU in
August 2004. Several others signatures followed from the private and public sector.
Since then, seven Member States (Cyprus, Finland, Greece, Italy, Lithuania, Slovenia,
Sweden) and three Associated States (Iceland, Norway, Switzerland) have signed the
eCall MoU, while the procedure for the signature has been started in other thirteen
countries, with different status of advancement. In some Member States like The
Netherlands, Portugal and the United Kingdom the procedure is advanced; furthermore
Germany has confirmed its imminent signing of the MoU. In France, an inter-ministerial
group has been created to study eCall deployment in co-operation with the industry, but
the existing emergency infrastructure is inadequate. Institutional, competencies and
organizational issues are reasons quoted by other Member States for lack of progress. Six
Member States (Belgium, Estonia, Latvia, Luxembourg, Poland and Slovakia) have not
reported on progress. Three Member States are planning studies. Ten Member States are
either running trials or planning to do so, including large-scale pilots. The Netherlands,
Finland and Sweden will be the first countries with operational eCall.
A "toolbox" for eCall, including the list of organisations that have signed the MoU can
be found on www.esafetysupport.org/en/ecall_toolbox/
On the industry side the Automobile manufacturers have developed technical
specifications for two possible solutions, a mobile device based and a basic vehicleintegrated
solution.
ETSI, the European Telecommunication Standardization Institute (ETSI_MSG) and
3GPP evaluated a number of possible technical solutions to produce an analysis and
recommendation for a common standard and communication protocol. The Transport
Protocol has been selected (in-Band Modem) and the TS is expected by Q1 2007
In order to progress in the analysis of the emergency management, the EC organised two
workshops involving emergency management players: a PSAPs workshop in March 2006
in Madrid and a Service Providers (SP) meeting in September 2006 in Brussels. Main
objective of the Madrid meeting was to discuss the PSAPs requirements in terms of
performance of the system and contents of the eCall Minimum Set of Data (MSD), while
the scope of the Brussels meeting with SP was to define the SP role in the deployment of
the eCall service.
The definition of the content of the Minimum Set of Data is almost completed. There is
only one issue remaining: the Vehicle Identification Number (VIN) It is not clear at the
moment if, in case of receiving an eCall, the VIN included in the MSD is sufficient for
extracting the vehicle information needed for the emergency services to handle the call
(i.e. type, make, model and model year of the vehicle). Otherwise this information needs
to be added as separate fields in the MSD. The EC is investigating this issue though a
questionnaire that has been distributed to the PSAP Expert Group.
In spite of a number of special meetings the Commission has arranged with stakeholders
like insurances, telecommunication companies and mobile network providers as well as
emergency call service providers and public authorities, no agreement could be reached
on a business model. Another open issue is the future role of the private service
providers, which offer emergency call service today.
214

On 23 November 2006 the Commission adopted its third Communication on “Bringing
eCall back on track”. It presents two actions that are crucial for making eCall a reality:
1. Member States have been given clear actions with deadlines for solving the
remaining legal, technical and socio-economic issues and proceeding with the
necessary 112, E112 and eCall infrastructures;
2. Industry is asked to renew its commitment to eCall. The Commission will also
start negotiations with the associations of the automotive industry on a voluntary
agreement for introducing eCall devices into vehicles.
The Commission will provide further assistance by working on privacy and
standardisation, and through field tests and public awareness campaigns, as part of the
Intelligent Car initiative within the Commission's i2010 strategy - a European
Information Society for growth and jobs.
A detailed report on the status of implementation of eCall at the end of 2006 can be
found in the eSafety Support deliverable D4.4 “Implementation Strategies and Status”,
available on www.esafetysupport.org/en/ecall_toolbox/.
European R&D:
eSafety Support – eCall Support (www.esafetysupport.org)
eMerge (www.e-merge.org/)
CGALIES (www.telematica.de/cgalies/index.html)
GST RESCUE (www.gstrescue.org)
One of the tasks within the GST Rescue project is to investigate the implementations
status of E112 in the Member States. This was done through a questionnaire sent out to
the 25 Member States and the study was finalised in November 2004. GST Rescue aims
to optimise the use of data from in-vehicle emergency call systems. Not only will invehicle
emergency calls deliver to the dispatch centre such critical additional information
as location and accident severity data as agreed by the DG eCall, but the emergency
vehicles themselves will employ a navigation solution and warning system permitting
them to arrive safely on the scene as quickly as possible.
National activities:
A consortium commissioned by the Finnish Ministry of Transport and Communications
has produced a plan for a national eCall pilot. The plan concludes that aftermarket
devices will enable more forceful and cost-efficient car fleet penetration than OEM eCall
devices. The plan also includes an analysis of user requirements based on an interview
study. The authorities will provide the system for the device manufacturers and vendors
in order to already ensure the operation of the devices. In 2004 a test bench for data
communication was implemented. The discussion paper to promote the Pan-European
ecall was written (and updated later). In 2005 was published the study to estimate the
impacts of an automatic emergency call system (eCall) on accident consequences in
Finland. In 2006 the needs and views of the involved authorities concerning the
implementation of eCall were clarified and matched. In addition, the changes and
development action required were determined. The aim of the study was to create a
national eCall authority framework to which the operational authorities can commit.
215

The German Federal Ministry of the Interior is planning the implementation of E112.
The plan is to visualise the location of the incident both at the PSAP and in the
emergency vehicles.
In Austria a pilot project was initiated in 2006 to test the communication parameters and
the necessary organisational structure for a future introduction of an efficient E112 call
service. The areas of investigation: were reliability of communication transmission and
positioning, and acceptance for pricing
The Ministry of Internal Affairs and Kingdom Relations in the Netherlands has made a
plan for the implementation of E112 taking place in 2006. The implementation contains
visualisation of incident location both at the PSAP and in the emergency vehicles. The
automotive platform ADI was instituted in The Netherlands with the mission to institute
one eCall platform in which public authorities (PSAPs and Ministry of Interior), Service
Providers, and automotive branch at large are represented. There will be a Service Level
Agreement with this platform and the Ministry of Interior on how to operate eCall in
The Netherlands in triangular organisational concept of emergency call – PSAP – Service
provider. One major element will be the institution of a central database with all
automotive data on make – model – model year and technical details, accessible on line
via eCall to provide all necessary data on handling all types of vehicles in emergency
service operation.
In the Czech Republic the Ministry of Transport in the connection with Ministry of
Interior supported an R&D project on eCall. The topic of the project is to describe and
test the functionality of PSAP centers.
eSafetySupport supports the organisation of national workshops where implementation
of eCall will be the key subject. These workshops will be organised throughout Europe in
2005. The first Expert workshops were held in Finland, Portugal and Switzerland in
2005.
The 2006 Expert workshop has been held in Hungary in March 2006.
eSafety Working Groups:
The eCall Working Group was established at the end of 2002. By mid 2003, the eCall
Working Group (at that point transformed into the eCall Driving Group) had identified
the key players involved in the eCall process (the automotive industry, the mobile
telecommunication industry, the public emergency authorities and associated or
cooperating service organisations, and the public social security organizations and private
insurance companies) and outlined the functionalities of the interfaces to be established
between the players. These players are members of four large “constituencies”: The eCall
Driving Group has developed an Action Plan for Pan-European emergency services.
These services will build on the location-enhanced emergency services being
implemented in the Member States on the basis of the recently adopted recommendation
on the implementation of E-112. Furthermore, these services will include provisions for
more accurate location information and additional safety information.
216

In July 2005 eight (8) sub-working groups were created within the eCall DG, with the
objective of identifying and solving some of the concrete issues related to the eCall
implementation that the different industries or organisations have. The positioning
papers from the different sub-working groups have been the basis for the
recommendations from the DG eCall for the introduction of the pan-European eCall..
These recommendations cover eCall architecture, performance requirements, the
definition of a Minimum Set of Data (MSD), certification and privacy issues, and were
adopted by the eSafety Forum Plenary in its meeting on 3 May 2006 and are available on
the "toolbox" for eCall on www.esafetysupport.org/en/ecall_toolbox/.
Future actions:
With the last Communication “Bringing eCall back on track”, Member States have been
given clear actions with deadlines for solving the remaining legal, technical and socioeconomic
issues and proceeding with the necessary 112, E112 and eCall infrastructures.
Industry is asked to renew its commitment to eCall.
The Commission supports the work of ETSI in defining the necessary standards, as well
as the work of the ETSI OCG ad-hoc group on emergency telecommunications (OCG
EMTEL).
An important future action in the standardisation area is the standardisation of the
Minimum Set of Data. CEN is the standardisation body working on this item.
Incentive possibilities need to be clarified by mid-2007, to support business case.
Contacts:
Mr Michael Nielsen, ERTICO, m.nielsen@mail.ertico.com
Mr Wolfgang Reinhardt, ACEA, wr@acea.be
217

5.1.8 Real-time Traffic and Traveller Information (RTTI) for road safety
Recommendation number and title:
15) Analyse the Member States’ responses to the RTTI Recommendation and draw
up further actions.
16) Create public-private partnerships to capture, process and provide real-time
traffic, travel and road condition data including Floating Vehicle Data.
17) Support the wider use of the pan-European RDS/TMC network for safetyrelated
traffic information. Provide a report with required actions to the
European Commission on the status of RDS/TMC implementation and the
remaining bottlenecks.
Activity leader:
15) European Commission
16) Organisations across multiple sectors (industry, public bodies, motoring clubs)
17) TMC Forum
Start of activities:
2003
2006 (restart of activities)
Background:
Real-time traffic and travel information (RTTI) can contribute greatly to safety. In order
to facilitate access to public sector data, and to enable the private and public sectors to
co-operate in the service provision, the Commission published in 2001 a
Recommendation on the deployment of Traffic and Travel services in Europe. RTTI is
the first area of a new generation of telematics services for drivers and other travellers to
achieve appreciable success. Currently, this is due to the fast-growing implementation of
services and products based primarily on existing RDS-TMC broadcast technology. In
the future, supplementary technologies such as digital bearers will enhance the service
possibilities. By delivering traffic data messages promptly to a suitable in-vehicle terminal,
TMC upgrades static navigation to real-time, i.e. dynamic route guidance, or “electronic
traffic avoidance” while giving safety benefits by alerting drivers to accidents, congestion
and hazardous driving conditions.
Status:
Floating Vehicle Data and other advanced data collection techniques are now being used
to support high quality TMC services. Public private partnerships could help increase the
usage of these techniques.
RDS-TMC receiver deployment has reached mass market status thanks to its relationship
with navigation systems, particularly the booming Personal Navigation Device market.
The TMC Forum continues to support wider use of RDS-TMC through assistance for
new and existing EU member states and organisations:
- Advice on all aspects of setting up TMC services
218

- Harmonisation, standardisation and quality assurance, e.g. certification of Location
Tables
- Development work to implement new features to improve services.
The use of higher-bandwidth communication media (such as terrestrial or satellite DAB)
and the results of research initiatives such as AGORA (pioneering on-the-fly location
referencing) and TPEG (extending the message set and supported applications) can help
broaden the capability for future RTTI services.
The first service trials using TPEG-based technology, from end 2006, form an important
step in bringing this new technology closer to market. European R&D:
- CONNECT Euro-Regional Project which (among other activities) supports the
introduction of TMC in selected new member states from the EU25.
- DYNASTY Project (Europe-Aid framework) demonstrating TMC in China and
promoting its adoption
- Mobile.info project (German industry led but wider applicability) developing
TPEG-based RTTI service supporting dynamic navigation
- TMC Forum working on development and standardisation of new features for
TMC, following requests from industry and public authorities, on an ongoing basis
- TPEG Forum working on development and standardisation of TPEG (Transport
Protocol Expert Group) framework and travel information applications using
digital bearers
National activities:
National activities centre around introducing TMC to new markets not only in Europe
but world wide, introducing more advanced traffic information collection methods and
trialling RTTI over digital bearers. Examples include:
- Taking TMC from trial to full commercial service status in Finland
- Commercial service development and launch in USA
- Commercial service development and launch in Australia
- Service demonstration in China
- Commercialisation and upgrade of existing TMC service in Italy
- Development of TMC service for Andorra
- Development of TMC service for Czech Republic
- Development of TMC service for Slovakia
- Ongoing maintenance of existing services and improvement with extra locations
supported across many countries (e.g. UK, Germany, France)
eSafety Working Groups:
The RTTI Working Group of the safety Forum, following the Recommendation on the
deployment of Traffic and Travel services in Europe published by the European
Commission in 2001, provides further analysis and recommendations for accelerating the
take-up of the measures for accessing the public sector data, enabling the establishment
219

of public-private partnerships, and the provision of reliable, high-quality RTTI services in
Europe.
The group has produced a technical and economical model for implementing the RTTI
services. The group recognises that the only viable short-term solution is RDS/TMC,
while other technologies will offer higher quality services in the future.
The RTTI Working Group ended its work in 2005 and the final results were made public
at the 2 nd eSafety High Level Meeting with the EU Member States on 18 October 2005
where recommendations to Member States were presented. Among these were:
◊ The need to agree on an implementation strategy for the extension of RTTI
services working to European Standards,
◊ Support the TMC Forum,
◊ Agreement on a minimum quality for public services,
◊ Publish clear guidelines for the private sector on the conditions for establishing
private data collection networks for commercial vehicles, and
◊ Ensure that frequency spectrum and broadcast capacity will be made available in
the near future and support the development of future advanced digital services.
Since then, further development in the field of RTTI has taken place but open issues
remain with respect to implementation, recommended measures and further roll-out.
On 02 May 2006, the eSafety Forum welcomed the re-launch of the RTTI Working
Group activities. The objectives of the Working Group are now to:
◊ Review the results and recommendations of the Final Report and analyse the
open issues
◊ Focus on traffic related criteria, expectations, and needs
◊ Propose a “Road Map” for the implementation of RTTI
◊ Propose further actions to the Commission
All the reports produced by the working group and the relevant documents are available
on www.esafetysupport.org/en/esafety_activities/esafety_working_groups/realtime_traffic_and_travel_information_rtti_.htm
.
Future actions:
- Work to take advantage of the RTTI possibilities offered by the availability of new
broadcast data bearers such as digital radio.
- Work to improve quality of service in urban areas.
- Continuing work to optimise and manage the quality of existing services.
- Support in introduction of TMC services to new markets (e.g. Eastern Europe and
China).
- Generation of primary traffic data (how? where?)
220

- Wider use and development of RDS/TMC
- Minimum set of information across borders
- Evaluation of traffic data (incl. prognosis)
- Distribution of traffic data (media, frequencies)
- User interface requirements
Contacts:
RTTI WG: Dr Heinz Friedrichs, Robert Bosch, heinz.friedrichs@de.bosch.com
TMC Forum: Mr James Burgess, ERTICO, j.burgess@mail.ertico.com
221

5.1.9 Motor vehicle type-approval legislation
Recommendation number and title:
18) Determine what actions may be required for bringing rapidly forward road safety
improvements obtainable with intelligent integrated road safety systems in
vehicles.
Activity leader:
European Commission
Start of activities:
2003
Background:
As the legislation is primarily performance based, it tends not to be design restrictive.
One area that will need revision is that of the provisions on the steering system, which
currently requires a mechanical link and monotonic action (i.e. the same amount of input
at the wheel always provides the same amount of output). This effectively prevents
steer-by-wire systems being brought to the market. Proposals to amend the UN-ECE
Regulation on steering systems to remove the requirements for a mechanical link and to
specifically permit certain steer-by-wire functions have been agreed and entered into
force in 2005 from when it can be used for the purposes of obtaining EC Whole Vehicle
Type Approval.
Status:
In 2006, the High Level Group of the CARS 21 initiative issued the paper “Competitive
Automotive Regulatory System for the 21st Century”, containing recommendations for
the public policy and regulatory framework for the European automotive industry. The
group recognised that processes including vehicle approval have to play their part in
ensuring that losses on Europe’s roads are reduced.
The group recommends that the Commission should come forward with proposals on
Electronic Stability Control, seatbelt reminders, brake assist systems, improvement of
heavy duty vehicles’ blind spots and conspicuity, Isofix child seats and daytime running
lights. The group also notes that several active safety technologies, such as obstacle
recognition systems, are at an advanced development stage and encourages their
development and market introduction to be pursued as fast as possible.
The Group, while stressing the possible EU role in promoting better enforcement,
education and infrastructure planning, acknowledges that responsibility for the
implementation of several infrastructure and user-related measures rests with the
Member States.
European R&D:
(not available)
National activities:
222

(not available)
eSafety Working Groups:
(not available)
Future actions:
(not available)
Contacts:
Mr Juhani Jaaskelainen, European Commission, INFSO-eSafety@ec.europa.eu
http://www.europa.eu.int/information_society/programmes/esafety/index_en.htm
223

5.1.10 Safety systems standards and regulation in the EU: State of the art
Recommendation number and title:
19) Analyse specific needs and priorities of intelligent integrated safety systems for
standardisation in ISO, CEN and ETSI. Promote accelerated standardisation.
Activity leader:
Standardisation bodies
Start of activities:
2003
Background:
The Commission is supporting both the work of the standardisation bodies and fostering
industry’s collaborative groups and open platforms.
The standardisation bodies active in ICT and ITS are ISO, IEC and ITU at international
level, and CEN, CENELEC and ETSI at European level. The most relevant technical
committees are ISO-TC 204, and CEN TC 278 (CEN TC 278206 and CEN TC278207).
The three European standards organisations have also formed a collaborative body called
The ICT Standards Board (ICTBS), and the public and private organisations dealing with
road transport have formed ISTSG, the Intelligent Transport Systems Steering Group.
The Commission is observer in ICTBS, and a member of ISTSG. The Commission has
also issued the following standardisation mandates to the European Standardisation
Organisations:·M329 – standardisation of the 24 GHz UWB SRR· M338 – drawing up a
work programme to support the EFC Directive· M270 – calling for work programme for
standardisation for ITS in road transport.
Status:
The ITSSG Strategic Framework document was finalized in November 2004 Specifically
for eSafety, the EC is responsible for mapping eSafety areas onto standardisation
requirements. The document was then updated in 2006 The document is available for
download a: www.itcsb.org
Human Machine Interaction with increasingly more complex in-vehicle systems is a
major concern.. To tackle this important issue, in 2000, the Commission published a
Recommendation on Safe and Efficient In-vehicle Information and Communication
Systems: a European Statement of Principles (ESoP) on human machine interface, which
has been welcomed by the industry. The Human-Machine Interaction Working
Group assessed the technical progress in collaboration with the industry and the Member
States, and has proposed a series of further measures on HMI in their final report of
2005. The EC has acted swiftly on one of the recommendations and formed an Expert
Group to update the European Statement of Principles (ESoP) on HMI. A new version
of the ESoP was drafted and reviewed prior to being sent to the EU Member States, the
European Parliament and the European Council. At the time when this report is written,
the document is being released.
As for eCall, the three most crucial issues for standardisation are:
224

1. A standardized single emergency telephone number for the European Union:
with 112 the European Commission already defined a single emergency number
for Europe.
2. The definition and format of the minimum set of data (MSD): the definition of
the MSD was done by the eCall-In-Vehicle-Functionality Working Group
(ECIV) and published by the eCall Driving Group in May 2006.
3. The transport protocol by which the MSD will be send via the mobile
telecommunication network (e.g. GSM) to the public service answering point
(PSAP): the European Commission gave a mandate to ETSI in 2005 to
standardize the necessary eCall transport protocol; the project management
within ETSI was given to ETSI MSG 12. Because of the ongoing technical
discussions on the eCall system requirements (e.g. SIM necessary or not) the
technical work was delayed for some time. To ensure the functionality of eCall in
the future the transport mechanism for the MSD needs to be defined not only
for GSM-, but also for UMTS-networks. Therefore the technical task was
forwarded to 3GPP SA. In September 2006 a work item for the standardization
of an eCall in-band modem was finally approved by 3GPP SA4, the system
architecture working group where the technical work will be carried out. Due to
the fact that this modem will not really affect GSM/UMTS standards, it was
decided to publish the eCall in-band modem procedures and algorithm not in a
standard but in a technical report expected by September 2007.
European R&D:
The Integrated Projects GST and PREVENT have substantial work packages in
standardisation. The projects also foster the development of open platforms and system
architecture.
A good example of undergoing work is the GST project, aiming at an open telematics
platform and collaborating with such industrial groups like OSGi Alliance, AMI-C, Open
GIS and MOSTCo.
GST, in all its sub-projects, is using the existing standards and is extending them,
extracting amendments to submit to standardisation bodies. A report is expected to be
released at beginning of 2007.
The subproject RESPONSE 3 of PReVENT elaborated a European Code of Practice
(CoP) for an accelerated market introduction of Advanced Driver Assistance Systems
(ADAS). The CoP, even if it is not aiming at defining a specific standard, will help
manufacturers to “safely” introduce new safety applications through an integrated
perspective on human, system and legal aspects.
The project CVIS is adopting the CALM standards for the V2I communication.
National activities:
(not available)
225

eSafety Working Groups:
The eSafety Communication Working Group is working together with Intelligent
Transportation Systems Steering Group (ITSSG) towards ETSI, CEN and ISO for the
progress of the standardisation of communication technologies and modes relevant for
the general mission of eSafety
Future actions:
In early 2007 the eSafety Steering Group will discuss the creation of a specific working
group that will cope with standardisation, representing the interface between the safety
initiative and the standards community, with the aim of identifying the standardisation
needs, drafting and submitting standardisation proposals to the standardisation bodies.
Contacts:
Ms Cathy Jenkins, DfT (UK), cathy.jenkins@dft.gsi.go.uk
Mr Paul Kompfner, ERTICO, p.kompfner@mail.ertico.com
226

5.1.11 Legal issues of market introduction of Intelligent Integrated Road
Recommendation number and title:
20) Develop a methodology for risk-benefit analysis, achieve a consensus on a
European Code of Practice, and establish guidelines for facilitating market
introduction of intelligent integrated safety systems.
Activity leader:
Automotive industry
Start of activities:
2004
Background:
Existing technical limits as well as liability issues are currently delaying the market
introduction of intelligent integrated safety systems (IISS): many ideas have been applied
in prototypes with safety features, but only few have been introduced in series
production. The creation of a Code of Practice (CoP) implies to establish “principles” for
the development and evaluation of IISS on a voluntary basis, as a result of a common
agreement between all involved partners and stakeholders, mainly initiated by
manufacturers. The proposal to establish such a Code of Practice was confirmed by the
Commissions Communication COM(2003) 542 of 15 September 2003. This CoP should
contain descriptions of procedures and processes for analysis of user requirements,
definition of systems according to these requirements, and validation procedures
showing that safety related customer requirements are fulfilled. This CoP should have a
special focus on an integrated “system safety - human factors” approach, being a basis
for future standardisation efforts, and also giving advice on the legal questions regarding
product liability, driver’s responsibility – manufacturer’s liability, etc.
Status:
For Advance Driver Assistance Systems the project RESPONSE 2 described market
introduction scenarios analyzing the gap between technological possibilities and market
introduction benefits and risks using typical scenario technique procedures. Enabling and
disabling factors concerning market introduction have been identified and their
interactions clarified, outlining the in-principal technological possibilities of modern
ADAS implying technical, human factors, and legal risks. In a second step this deeper
understanding of enabling and disabling factors was used for the definition of
risk/benefit-assessment methodologies. This was done on a 'microscopic' perspective,
where the risks for the whole Human-Machine-System had to be evaluated. Further a
macroeconomic approach for a combined risk-benefit analysis was developed. In a third
step these risk identification and assessment strategies were translated into a
requirements definition for a CoP for development and testing of ADAS. This included
the analysis of already existing procedures and standards as well as the derivation of need
for additional ADAS-specific procedures. Content, structure and formal aspects of a
future CoP was defined.
227

On October 2006 the RESPONSE 3 project, a subproject of the integrated project
PReVENT, released the CoP to provide the vehicle industry with the tools and common
understanding to overcome and to help managing the problems about safety concerns
and liability. The CoP comprises a suitable ADAS description concept including ADAS
specific requirements for system development. It summarises best practices and proposes
methods for risk assessment and controllability evaluation. The application of the CoP is
a possibility to demonstrate that state-of-the-art procedures in ADAS development have
been applied, including risk identification, risk assessment and evaluation methodology.
Risks of ADAS may be highly complex. The term "defective product" is used in the
European Product Liability Directive not only in a technical sense but it is also linked to
human factors including system requirements such as dependability, controllability,
comprehensibility, predictability and misuse resistance. Currently the technological safety
issues are standardised within ISO TC22 while RESPONSE 3 is focusing on the humanmachine
interaction safety issues of ADAS, in particular on driver controllability, an
ADAS key issue.
European R&D:
Response 2 (http://response.adase2.net/)
Response 3 (http://www.prevent-ip.org/en/prevent_subprojects/horizontal_activities/
response_3/)
PREVENT (http://www.prevent-ip.org/)
National activities:
(not available)
eSafety Working Groups:
(not available)
Future actions:
The RESPONSE 3 consortium is now encouraging all people involved in the ADAS
development to benefit from applying the Code of Practice in their companies
Contacts:
Mr Maxime Flament, ERTICO, m.flament@mail.ertico.com
Dr Juergen Schwarz, DaimlerChrysler AG, juergen.s.schwarz@daimlerchrysler.com
228

5.1.12 Ultra wide-band 24 GHz short range radar
Recommendation number and title:
21) Take the necessary actions for removing regulatory barriers to the use of the 24
GHz band for short-range radar in Europe.
22) Undertake the standardisation in ETSI for the 24 GHz UWB radar.
Activity leader:
21) European Commission
22) Standardisation bodies
Start of activities:
2003
Background:
Short-range radars (SRR) that can detect collision dangers and automatically apply a car’s
brakes are available since mid-2005, further to a Decision adopted 17 January 2005 by
the European Commission. In Europe, CEPT ECC/DEC/(02) 01 designates the band
76-77 GHz for vehicular or infrastructure radar systems. However, SRR systems require
a wider bandwidth than currently available to obtain the required resolution.
Furthermore, the automotive industry holds that the immediate implementation of SRR
systems in or around this frequency range would not be feasible at the present time,
given the stated relative lack of maturity and cost-effectiveness of the available
technology for this band. The automotive industry believes that in the short term,
operation around the 24 GHz band is the only commercially viable solution, with a
subsequent migration to the 77 GHz or to another band after some years, by which time
appropriate technology solutions are expected to have become cost-effective and the
SRR concept validated in the market.
Status:
The Commission decision, which allocates a specific radio frequency band to short-range
radar devices, is the result of a two-year drive by the Commission and EU radio spectrum
and road safety experts. According to the European Road Safety Action Programme, the
number of road accident victims is to be halved in the EU by 2010. All new SRR devices
would have to use the 77 GHz band (or any other designated permanent band) while the
operation of existing SRR systems would remain authorised in the temporary band to the
end of their operational lifetime. The Radio Spectrum Decision of 2002 allows the
Commission, with the assistance of the Radio Spectrum Committee (RSC), to adopt
decisions on EC radio harmonisation measures, based on CEPT reports. The
Commission issued in August 2003 a mandate to CEPT for the harmonisation of radio
spectrum in both 79 and 24 GHz ranges. On the basis of the CEPT report, the
Commission will bring a decision concerning this spectrum range to the RSC in 2004.
The 79 GHz range band has been identified by CEPT as the most suitable band for long
term development and deployment of SRR.
On February 2006 the EC organised a workshop on spectrum requirements for road
safety, with the purpose to get the interested parties together to discuss the spectrum
requirements of the future safety critical applications in the context of Cooperative
229

Systems; and the status of current activities in Europe and internationally in terms of
harmonisation and standardization.
European R&D:
(not available)
National activities:
(not available)
eSafety Working Groups:
(not available)
Future actions:
A new harmonised standard for the permanent frequency band would need to be
developed as early as possible and with the highest priority. Furthermore, a harmonised
standard from ETSI for SRR devices at 24 GHz produced in the context of the R&TTE
Directive will only be accepted by the Commission provided it is in line with the various
elements of the overall approach agreed to in the Radio Spectrum Committee. To enable
the operation of SRR devices in new vehicles sold on the European market, radio
spectrum needs to be rapidly identified and harmonised at Community level.
Contacts:
Mr Juhani Jaaskelainen, European Commission, INFSO-eSafety@ec.europa.eu
http://www.europa.eu.int/information_society/programmes/esafety/index_en.htm
230

5.1.13 Societal aspects
Recommendation number and title:
23) Estimate the socio-economic benefits, which can be obtained through the
reduction of fatalities, injuries and material damage.
Activity leader:
European Commission
Start of activities:
2004
Background:
The impact of intelligent vehicle safety systems goes beyond mere improvements in road
safety. Other effects, such as greater reliability of arrival times, environmental benefits or
increased driver convenience are also benefits of using IVSS. An assessment of the socioeconomic
impact of safety systems also faces the possibility of reverse effects, for
example a reduction in traffic flow or even an increase in the number of accidents due to
inappropriate human-machine interfaces. Investigations of the socio-economic impact of
intelligent safety systems began in the late 1980s. Since then, the benefits of IVSS and
services have been assessed on the basis of more than 200 operational tests and early
deployment experiences in North America, Europe, Japan, and Australia (PIARC 2000).
Three broad-based categories of evaluation approach are currently being used (OECD
2003):
◊ Empirical data from laboratory measurements and real-world tests;
◊ Simulation;
◊ Statistical analysis.
Status:
The Commission launched in July 2004 an exploratory study on the potential socioeconomic
impact of the introduction of Intelligent Safety Systems in road vehicles
(SEiSS). The lead contractor of the SEiSS study was VDI/VDE Innovation + Technik,
Germany, and the work ended in January 2005. The Commission initiated this
exploratory study in order to:
◊ Provide a survey of current approaches to assess the impact of new IVSS;
◊ Develop a methodology for assessing the potential impact of IVSS in Europe;
◊ Provide factors for estimating the socio-economic benefits resulting from the
introduction of Intelligent Vehicle Safety Systems;
◊ Identify the major indicators influencing market deployment and develop
deployment scenarios for selected technologies/regions.
The socio-economic impact was preliminarily estimated for a certain number of cases
showing a positive Benefit-Cost ratio in the long term. The report can be found on
http://www.esafetysupport.org/download/intelligent_vehicle_reports/Final_SEiSS.pdf.
231

A survey on “Incentives schemes applied by the Member States in the Transportation
Sector” was also conducted in 2005 so as to design a strategy to support the adoption of
eSafety. This survey collected experiences from the Member States in the application of
financial or fiscal control incentives in the transportations field as an instrument to speed
up the introduction of improved or new technologies, especially in conjunction with
regulatory requirements. The study is downloadable from the eSafety Support website:
http://www.esafetysupport.org/download/socio_economic_studies/Incentives%20stud
y.pdf
In 2006 a EU-funded specific targeted research project (STREP) started assessing the
socio-economic effect of relevant Intelligent Vehicle Safety Systems. The project is called
eIMPACT and its objectives are:
◊ A Socio-economic impact assessment of IVSS:
o identification of the most promising stand-alone and co-operative IVSS
technologies;
o market penetration scenarios for IVSS;
o expected impacts on traffic safety and efficiency, detailed results for 2010
& 2020
◊ Perspectives on the market introduction of IVSS
o integrating the input from the impact analysis, policy options and
stakeholder roles
The list of systems recommended for in-depth assessment puts together stand-alone
systems (ACC/FSR; emergency braking, collision mitigation & pre-crash protection of
vulnerable road users, ESC, lane keeping support; lateral & rear monitoring, lane change
aid and lateral collision warning; night vision, driver drowsiness monitoring and warning),
and co-operative systems (intersection safety, wireless local danger warning, eCall, Speed
Alert). Since July the project started the development of a methodology for traffic impact
analysis, safety impact analysis, cost-benefit analysis and stakeholder analysis. In
September 2007 it organised a scenario development workshop where future projections
of penetration rates were discussed. The socio-economic results will be available in late
2007.
European R&D:
Several projects funded by EU member states or the European Commission as well as
studies carried out by the automotive industry and equipment suppliers have already
provided some data on IVSS impact. A number of projects deal with technological R&D
and provide a good basis for further progress. These projects include AIDE, ARCOS,
CarTALK 2000, CHAMELEON, EDEL, E-Merge, GST, HUMANIST, INVENT,
PReVENT, PROTECTOR, RADARNET and SAFE-U. Several projects (such as
ADASE II, GST, HUMANIST) are focused on accompanying measures to develop the
sectoral innovation system and strengthen networks and co-operation. Some projects
(such as ADVISORS and RESPONSE) deal with the implementation of safety systems
and measures to support the application of new technologies. Finally, a number of
projects discuss the costs and benefits of the technologies. These include ADVISORS,
CHAUFFEUR, DIATS, E-Merge, STARDUST, and the TRL Report.
eImpact is a new dedicated project assessing the socio-economic effect of relevant
Intelligent Vehicle Safety Systems (http://www.eimpact.eu).
232

Also the project TRACE (www.trace-project.org/) is investigating the safety effects of
intelligent vehicle safety systems using the accident causation approach.
The projects TRACE and eIMPACT exchange information constantly, organising
common workshops and other co-operation activites. Both projects are expected to
produce results in 2007. In addition, PReVAL assesses the safety effects of the
PReVENT systems within the project.
National activities:
The UK Department of Transport has contracted a consortium to evaluate the
quantifiable cost and benefits of ITS deployment. The project is considering a wide range
of ITS applications, of which Travel and Traffic Information systems form an important
element. Particular attention is being paid to the benefits accruing from both
technological and institutional integration in the deployment of ITS. The end product of
this study will be a comprehensive Guidance, a methodology that can be applied, taking
into account local circumstances, in terms of:
- The nature of the benefits that might realistically be anticipated, according to a range of
policy goals;
- The factors, which determine the outturn costs and benefits of ITS deployment;
- The variables, which the end user is most able to influence in order to maximise
benefits;
- What needs to be monitored and controlled to ensure that benefits are realised; and
- What needs to be measured and evaluated in the future, to ensure that the benefits
anticipated are being achieved.
eSafety Working Groups:
The Working Group on R&D has defined the following research need for this area:
EU wide assessment and verification (with international comparison) of efficacy of safety
measures and systems – including the establishment of methodologies for a
comprehensive cost benefit analysis.
Future actions:
A systematic assessment and coherent analysis of the socio-economic impact of
Intelligent Vehicle Safety Systems will be brought forward by eImpact. The socioeconomic
results will be available in late 2007. The project will finish at the end
2007/spring 2008.
Contacts:
Mr Juhani Jaaskelainen, European Commission, INFSO-eSafety@ec.europa.eu
http://www.europa.eu.int/information_society/programmes/esafety/index_en.htm
Ms Kerry Malone (TNO) kerry.malone@tno.nl
233

Recommendation number and title:
24) Stimulate and support road users and fleet owners to buy vehicles equipped with
intelligent road safety systems.
Activity leader:
eSafetyAware!
European Commission / Member States
Start of activities:
2003
2006
Background:
The aim is to create more awareness among the road users of the benefits that eSafety
systems offer and to stimulate the purchase of vehicles equipped with eSafety systems
with instruments such as financial and tax incentives
Status:
The Working Group on User Outreach defined a strategy for dissemination of eSafety
research to the end user and public Awareness activities (eSafety campaigns) to promote
the eSafety systems available on the market.
As part of the strategy, the eSafety User Outreach Working Group recommended to
create an eSafety Communication Platform, now renamed “eSafety Aware!” (see
Recommendation 27).
eSafetyAware! will kick off with the launch of a pan-European information campaign on
Electronic Stability Control in 2007, organising an i2010 event & ESC campaign
launching event in Rome, Italy.
A survey on different kind of incentives that could fit eSafety technologies was produced
by the European Commission in 2005.
European R&D:
eSafetyAware! (www.esafetysupport.org/en/esafety_activities/esafety_aware) is an
independent platform that seeks to accelerate the market introduction of eSafety
technologies by organising information campaigns and dedicated events aimed at creating
awareness of eSafety benefits among policy-makers and end-users (see Recommendation
27).
National activities:
Very few Member States (Denmark, the Netherlands) introduced specific incentives for
vehicles equipped with eSafety Systems 3 .
3 See “Incentives Schemes applied by the Member States in the Transportation Sector: towards the design
of a strategy to support the adoption of eSafety”, Alessandro Carrotta, 2005
(www.esafetysupport.org/download/socio_economic_studies/Incentives%20study.pdf)
234

eSafety Working Groups:
The User Outreach Working Group has analysed some consumer campaigns and
experiences from suppliers, communications models and penetration patterns of some
earlier technologies like ESC.
The group recommended the establishment of a common Communication Platform for
safety, now renamed “eSafety Aware!” (see Recommendation 27). All the interested
stakeholders can join this platform on voluntary basis. The platform will co-ordinate the
media work, marketing issues and political work. A pilot campaign will be launched in
2007 (see Recommendation 27).
Future actions:
The study about the possibility of the introduction of tax incentives will be continued by
the European Commission. A workshop on this topic will be probably organised.
Organising campaigns and information material/articles.
Widen eSafety!Aware platform.
eSafetyAware! will kick off with the launch of a pan-European information campaign on
Electronic Stability Control in 2007, organising an i2010 event & ESC campaign
launching event in Rome, Italy
Contacts:
UOWG - Mr Olivier Lenz, FIA, o.lenz@fiabrussels.com
eSafetyAware! - Mr David Ward, FIA, communicationplatform@esafetysupport.org
235

5.1.14 The different business cases
Recommendation number and title:
25) Identify best practices for positive business cases to promote the introduction of
intelligent integrated road safety systems.
Activity leader:
Multi-sector organisation
Start of activities:
2003
Background:
For both public and commercial services there needs to be a successful business model.
As in the past, the public model rests on securing safety benefits judged to outweigh the
costs of providing the service. For any commercial provider, the challenge is to collect
sufficient revenue from customers while minimising the cost of data collection and
service provision. Individual drivers are reluctant to pay directly for services like traffic
information, especially safety messages, that is commonly understood to be provided free
of charge as a public service.
Status:
An exploratory study on the potential socio-economic impact of the introduction of
Intelligent Safety Systems in Road Vehicles (SEISS) was completed in January 2005. The
socio-economic impact was preliminarily estimated for a certain number of cases
showing a positive Benefit-Cost ratio in the long term (see Recommendation 23).
A survey on “Incentives schemes applied by the Member States in the Transportation
Sector” was also conducted in 2005 so as to design a strategy to support the adoption of
eSafety. This survey collected experiences from the Member States in the application of
financial or fiscal control incentives in the transportations field as an instrument to speed
up the introduction of improved or new technologies, especially in conjunction with
regulatory requirements 4 (see Recommendation 23).
European R&D:
(not available)
National activities:
(not available)
4 See “Incentives Schemes applied by the Member States in the Transportation Sector: towards the design
of a strategy to support the adoption of eSafety”, Alessandro Carrotta, 2005
(www.esafetysupport.org/download/socio_economic_studies/Incentives%20study.pdf)
236

eSafety Working Groups:
The RTTI WG has identified that, other than free services such as those offered by TMC
in many countries today, annual or monthly fees such as a radio tax or a once-per-life
down payment added to the purchase price of the receivers could be more easily
accepted by the customers than a pay-per-use service.
Future actions:
(not available)
Contacts:
Mr Juhani Jaaskelainen, European Commission, INFSO-eSafety@ec.europa.eu
http://www.europa.eu.int/information_society/programmes/esafety/index_en.htm
237

Recommendation number and title:
26) Support the eCall business model by implementing the full service chain and
ensuring interoperability and compatibility with E-112.
Activity leader:
Member States
Start of activities:
2004
Background:
In order to assess and secure the socio-economic benefits of European e-Call, it is
necessary to collect, compare and combine existing studies and test results. These proven
figures and acceptable assumptions shall support the business case analysis, and allow
further discussions on how the stakeholders can balance efforts and benefits for a
common willingness to roll out this program. These figures shall also help to determine
how the expected benefits are distributed between public and private sectors.
The economics of the eCall model have been investigated and found genuinely
problematic in the sense that:
- Significant up front investments must be made by the automotive industry, the telecom
industry and the emergency Authorities.
- When in service, eCall is expected to reduce the costs of social security and of the
insurance companies while neither of these two constituencies would have contributed to
the investments.
- The upfront investments of the automotive and telecom industries would be largely
pointless unless the emergency authorities, as an initial step, have also invested to make
their operational processes compatible with eCall.
Status:
The need for a positive business case for eCall has been identified at the high-level
meeting 3 February 2005. Also the European Commission has been requested to make
an in-depth analysis on the possible use of fiscal incentives (reduction of vehicle taxes).
European R&D:
(not available)
National activities:
(not available)
238

eSafety Working Groups:
Initially a Working Group was established to look at the Business Case for Intelligent
Vehicle Safety Systems. Due to very close synergies with the eCall Working Group, and
the largely overlapping list of members, this group was merged into the eCall Driving
Group, that concluded its work on 2006 with the release of the Final Recommendations.
The eCall DG brought forward the work on the three different business cases:
Name Objective
Business Case 1 Overview of the studies currently
(BC.1)
available
Business Case 2 Cost / benefits for the Insurance
(BC.2)
Business Case 3
(BC.3)
Industry – potential business case
Vehicle manufactures to define the costs
of the In-Vehicle System
The eCall DG produced, in its final report, a clarification paper with an overview of
available studies on proven or assessed benefits of e-Call. The document is available
online: www.esafetysupport.org/download/ecall_toolbox/Reports/Appendix_16.pdf
Future actions:
To support the business model it will be necessary for the main stakeholders to sign the
agreed MoU. The MoU is ready for signature and has already been signed by a number of
stakeholders.
The complete list of MoU signees can be found on the eCall toolbox on
www.esafetysupport.org /en/ecall_toolbox/.
Contacts:
Mr Michael Nielsen, ERTICO, m.nielsen@mail.ertico.com
Mr Wolfgang Reinhardt, ACEA, wr@acea.be
239

5.1.15 User Outreach
Recommendation number and title:
27) Design and execute awareness campaigns that explain the benefits, functioning
and use of the intelligent integrated road safety systems to the consumers.
Activity leader:
User organisations/eSafetyAware!
Start of activities:
2003
2006
Background:
A close link between the development of eSafety technologies and the end users is
missing today. The benefits of these advanced technologies are difficult to disseminate to
a broad public and more engagement of the user might bring the technologies closer to a
market introduction. All key stakeholders are interested in the user acceptance of eSafety
technologies and this needs to be supported by a broader dissemination of eSafety
functionalities and benefits.
Status:
The Working Group on User Outreach defined a strategy for dissemination of eSafety
research to the end user and public Awareness activities (eSafety campaigns) to promote
the eSafety systems available on the market.
As part of the strategy, the eSafety User Outreach Working Group recommended to
create an eSafety Communication Platform, now renamed “eSafety Aware!”. This
happened on the 29 th of June, under the chairmanship of David Ward, FIA Foundation.
Until now 31 organisations from Public authorities, Industry and users organisations
have become members.
The creation of this platform was announced at the i2010 meeting organised by the
Finnish presidency in Helsinki on the 28 th of September. The main objective is to create
more awareness on eSafety among the general public. The first Steering Group Meeting
for the Communication Platform took place on 19th September 2006 in Brussels,
Belgium, and the first Plenary Meeting with the members of the platform took place on
12th October 2006 in London, UK.
The platform has a non-competitive character, through which all the stakeholders will:
· Gain forces for common aims
· Increase efficiency of the communication
· Formulate common messages to the public
· Explain the technologies, their specifications and qualities
· Give good reasons why a car should be equipped with such technologies
The UOWG proposes a list of procedures concerning the definition of communication
tools, the development of test and media protocols and the financing of media work.
240

The UOWG found out that in order to successfully transpose communication strategies
with regard to the user, the internal communication, especially within the sales
departments of eSafety systems producers and car dealers, has to be improved. The
Working Group has listed tools for external and internal communication that could help
support their work:
• External communication to the general public:
o continuous media work with contributions to press, internet, TV and
radio (e.g. TV footage, internet texts, photographs, press releases,
magazine articles);
o consumer protection tests with benchmarking rating system;
o maintenance of an interactive website;
o creation of interactive games;
o leaflets;
o presence on fairs and conferences;
o surveys and consumer polls;
o development of a label/brand;
• Internal communication to dealers, driving schools etc.:
o organisation of trainings;
o updated website;
o fairs;
o conferences;
o PC tools;
o videos.
eSafetyAware! will kick off with the launch of a pan-European information campaign on
Electronic Stability Control in 2007, organising an i2010 event & ESC campaign
launching event in Rome, Italy
European R&D:
eSafety Support (www.eSafetysupport.org) is disseminating European R&D and policy
results for eSafety systems and services and has a dedicated work package on user
outreach.
eSafetyAware! (www.esafetysupport.org/en/esafety_activities/esafety_aware) is an
independent platform that seeks to accelerate the market introduction of eSafety
technologies by organising information campaigns and dedicated events aimed at creating
awareness of eSafety benefits among policy-makers and end-users.
National activities:
(not available)
241

eSafety Working Groups:
The User Outreach Working Group has been formed to increase the awareness among
the general public of the existence of eSafety systems, their contribution to road safety in
general, and their potential for reducing individual risk is essential. Besides the awareness
on new eSafety systems there are further influences defining the acceptance by the user
and forming the basis for real demand. The working group will concentrate on aspects of
communication and consumer behaviour. Therefore communication and campaign
managers, media and marketing experts and representatives of user groups will be
particularly invited to contribute to the working group.
The group has analysed some consumer campaigns and experiences from suppliers,
communications models and penetration patterns of some earlier technologies like ABS.
The group recommended the establishment of a Communications Platform for eSafety
outreach activities in. This platform will invite of all interested stakeholders to coordinate
media work, marketing issues, campaigns, and political work. A first campaign will be
organised in 2007. Later, eSafety should look into a common Label for eSafety. The pilot
campaign will benefit from user surveys such as the Eurobarometer.
Future actions:
Organising campaigns and information material/articles.
Widen eSafety!Aware platform
eSafetyAware! will kick off with the launch of a pan-European information campaign on
Electronic Stability Control in 2007, organising an i2010 event & ESC campaign
launching event in Rome, Italy
Contacts:
UOWG - Mr Olivier Lenz, FIA, o.lenz@fiabrussels.com
eSafetyAware! - Mr David Ward, FIA Foundation,
communicationplatform@esafetysupport.org
242

5.1.16 The eSafety Forum
Recommendation number and title:
28) Create an eSafety Forum with the objective to monitor and promote the
implementation of these recommendations, and support the development,
deployment and use of intelligent integrated road safety systems.
Activity leader:
European Commission
Start of activities:
2003
Background:
The eSafety Forum was established in early 2003 by the European Commission in close
co-operation with the industry, industrial associations and public sector stakeholders. Its
organisation is managed by the Steering Group, which meets about once a month. The
Steering Group is co-chaired by European Commission, ERTICO, and ACEA and has
representatives from all sectors. In 2003, the Steering Group defined the work
programme of the Forum as well as membership issues and the Working Groups. The
Commission adopted in September 2003 a Communication on Information and
Communications Technologies for Safe and Intelligent Vehicles, based on the results
from the eSafety Working Group and other consultations. The Communication brings
forward the actions the Commission intends to take in order to accelerate the
development, large-scale deployment, and use of eSafety systems. The eleven actions of
the Communication fall into three categories: promoting Intelligent Integrated Safety
Systems, adapting the regulatory and standardisation provisions, and removing the
societal and business obstacles.
Status:
eSafety Support, on behalf of the eSafety Steering Group, organises Steering Group
meetings, High Level meetings, and Plenary Meetings, follows the activities of the
Working Groups and supports the organisation of workshops, and offers the secretarial
support to eSafety activities.
Six Plenary Sessions have been organised until the end of 2006:
1. 22 April 2003 (Brussels),
2. 17 November 2003 (Madrid),
3. 25 March 2004 (Brussels),
4. 2 June 2005 (Hannover),
5. 2-3 May 2006 (Brussels),
6. 8 November 2006 (Brussels).
In 2006 two Plenary sessions took place.
o The Fifth Plenary Session reviewed the eSafety Initiative’s progress to date,
adopting the recommendations of numerous eSafety Working Groups, including
those of the Communication, Implementation Road Map and Heavy Duty
Working Groups. Particular attention was devoted to the recommendations of
243

the eCall and User Outreach Working Groups. Further broadening the work of
the eSafety Forum, participants approved the creation of two new Working
Groups: “ICT for Clean Mobility” and “Services-Oriented Architecture”.
o During the Sixth Plenary Session the 3rd Commission Communication “Bringing
eCall back on track” was presented and the “Information and Communication
Technologies for Mobility Strategic Research Agenda” was adopted. Mr Rudolf
Strohmeier, Head of European Commissioner Viviane Reding’s Cabinet, made a
keynote address stressing the importance of bringing the benefits of the
information society to the citizens. Mr Strohmeier pointed to eCall as a good
example of how this can be achieved, but cautioned that the target of full-scale
roll-out of eCall would not be accomplished if the Member States did not step up
their efforts in upgrading their emergency service centres.
In September 2004 the Forum organised a High Level meeting for the public authorities,
another High Level meeting took place on 3 February 2005 focusing on the private
sector, and a High Level meeting was organised for the Member States on 18 October
2005. On 2006 a High-Level meeting of the Commission's i2010 initiative - a European
Information Society for growth and jobs – was organised in Helsinki, announcing the
creation of a new platform to promote awareness brings together stakeholders from the
public sector, automotive suppliers and users.
Furthermore, six Steering group meetings are normally organised each year. For 2006 the
meeting taking place were the following ones:
1. 19th Steering Group Meeting, 7 February 2006 (Brussels)
2. 20th Steering Group Meeting, 4 April 2006 (Brussels)
3. 21st Steering Group Meeting, 4 July 2006 (Brussels)
4. 22nd Steering Group Meeting, 11 October 2006 (London)
European R&D:
A number of R&D projects have been launched by the Commission under FP5 and FP6:
ADVISORS, AIDE, APROSYS, APSN, AWAKE, COMUNICAR, EASIS, eSCOPE,
EUCLIDE, EU-India EuroRoads, GST, HIGHWAY, HUMANIST, IM@GINE IT,
IN-ARTE, PEIT, PReVENT, SAVE, SPARC, TRAVEL-GUIDE, SpeedAlert, etc.
The project launched in 2006 are: ATESST, COM2REACT, COMeSAFETY, COVER,
CVIS, CyberCars-2, eIMPACT, eSafety Support, EU-India, FeedMAP, FRICTION,
GOOD ROUTE, i-way, MORYNE, REPOSIT, SAFESPOT, Sevecom, TRACE,
TRACKSS, WATCH OVER, etc.
More information on these projects can be found on
www.esafetysupport.org/en/esafety_activities/related_projects.
National activities:
The eSafety Forum Observers Group, a panel of EU Member State representatives
which are invited to report on their national eSafety activities, are actively involved in
national industry, policy, or R&D activities and are acknowledged experts in their domain
or sector.
eSafety Support is responsible for organising eSafety Observers Meetings at the EU and
regional levels. The meetings at EU level bring together once a year representatives of all
244

EU member states. Regional meetings take place around Europe and give the
opportunity to two or more countries to meet and report on the latest eSafety
developments in their countries.
Four European Observers meeting were organised cine the beginning:
1. 28 September 2004, Brussels;
2. 14 April 2005, Helsinki;
3. 21 November 2005, Brussels;
4. 02 - 03 November 2006, Stockholm and Helsinki.
Furthermore, in 2006, four Regional meeting were organised:
1. 1st eSafety Regional Observers Meeting, 15 May 2006 (Vigo, Spain);
2. 2nd eSafety Regional Observers Meeting, 15 June 2006 (Göteborg, Sweden)
3. 3rd eSafety Regional Observers Meeting, 18 September 2006 (Turin, Italy)
4. 4th eSafety Regional Observers Meeting, 21 September 2006 (Athens, Greece)
eSafety Working Groups:
The Forum has created 11 Working Groups in the following areas:
- Accident Causation Data
- Emergency Call (eCall)
- Human-Machine Interaction (HMI)
- International Cooperation
- Research and Development
- Real-time Traffic and Travel Information (RTTI)
- Implementation Road Maps
- Heavy Duty Vehicles
- User Outreach
- Digital Maps
- Communications
- Service Oriented Architectures (created in 2006)
- ICT for Clean Mobility (created in 2006)
The working groups might dissolve when their role has been finalised and new working
groups can be created. The status of the working groups at the end of 2006 is the
following one:
A complete report on the activity of each Working Group can be found in Chapter 4.
245

Future actions:
For 2007 the safety Forum will organise the following meetings:
• Two eSafety Forum Plenary meetings. The first one will take place in Brussels
at the beginning of March and the second one will be organised on 13
September together with the Intelligent Car Event and PReVENT
Demonstration Days in Versailles, France.
• One eSafety Forum High-Level meeting with industry will be organised on 8
May together with the i2010 event & ESC campaign launching event in
Rome, Italy.
• Six Steering Group meeting are planned for 2007. They will take place in
Brussels, hosted by ERTICO, ACEA and the EC.
246

• The Member States not concerned by the four eSafety Observers Regional
meetings that did take place in 2006, will be invited to join more regional
meetings. Tentative meetings will be held in the Netherlands (for Ireland, the
Netherlands and the UK), in France (for Belgium, France and Luxembourg)
and in Czech Republic (putting together the Eastern Countries not involved
in the previous meetings).
All eSafety Forum activities can be found on www.esafetysupport.org
Contacts:
Mr Juhani Jaaskelainen, European Commission, INFSO-eSafety@ec.europa.eu
http://www.europa.eu.int/information_society/programmes/esafety/index_en.htm
Dr Alessandro Carrotta, a.carrotta@esafetysupport.org
247

248

Chapter 6 -
PROGRESS OF THE
ESAFETY WORKING
GROUPS AND FINAL
RECOMMENDATIONS
249

The eSafety Working Groups are focusing on domain-specific priority areas that are
important for the implementation of the eSafety Working Group recommendations, and
in line with the actions brought forward in the Commission Communication.
Section 6.1 summarises the activities undergoing in 2006 for the active eSafety Working
Groups, and the follow-up activities undergoing in the Forum or in the concerned bodies
for the concluded ones.
Section 6.2 reports on the Final Recommendations of the eSafety Working Groups
produced between May 2006 and December 2006. The eCall Driving Group is the only
Working Group that finalised and released its “Final Recommendations for the
introduction of the Pan-European eCall”. The complete text of the recommendations is
reported in Annex I of this addendum.
250

6.1 Progress of the eSafety Working Groups
6.1.1 Accident Causation Analysis Working Group
Status: Concluded
Meetings in 2006: None.
The role of the Accident Causation Analysis Working Group was to:
◊ Analyse the data from existing databases
◊ Define the most effective countermeasures
◊ Make recommendations for a homogeneous accident causation data collection
and analysis
The Working Group analysed available European data sources including CARE, MAIDS,
GIDAS, EACS, CCIS, OTS, IRTAD, etc. These sources range from European to
national and private institution level. The Working Group assessed the potential for the
different sources to be used in conjunction with each other. The analysis confirmed the
Working Group’s hypothesis that although many information sources already exist, their
heterogeneity prevents from setting up a pan-European picture.
The Working Group recommended to the eSafety Forum that existing sources could
nevertheless help to give a better understanding of accident causation and to evaluate the
effectiveness of some on-board safety functions, if common analysis mechanisms were
employed to query the different data sources and to share the results. The questions that
need to be answered during the interrogation of existing data sources have been
developed in a report (see Annex 2 of the “Interim Report and Recommendations of the
Accident Causation Analysis Working Group”).
The Working Group handed its Final Report, including recommendations for further
actions, in December 2004. A comprehensive and understandable definition of accident
causation based on the existing databases is now being examined by the TRACE project.
The longer-term recommendation of the eSafety Forum to define a common format and
structure for future accident data is being led by SafetyNet and Accident Causation
Analysis Working Group members are in touch with this work.
6.1.2 Human Machine Interaction Working Group
Status: Concluded
Meetings in 2006: None.
Human Machine Interaction with increasingly more complex in-vehicle systems is a
major concern. To tackle this important issue, in 2000, the Commission published a
Recommendation on Safe and Efficient In-vehicle Information and Communication
Systems: a European Statement of Principles on human machine interface, which has
been welcomed by the industry.
251

The Human Machine Interaction Working Group identified the HMI-related concerns
relevant to the introduction of in-vehicle eSafety systems. One of HMI’s major concerns
was the introduction of nomadic devices in vehicles, whose use has highly increased since
the EsoP’s release.
The Group finalised a detailed document on HMI, describing stakeholders'
responsibilities and identifying the differences between principles on installation,
information presentation, design of interaction and systems behaviour. The final report is
available on the eSafety Support website for download:
http://www.esafetysupport.org/download/working_groups/HMI_Rec_Final_Report.pd
f.
An updated version of the EsoP was also published in 2005. A new draft version of the
ESoP has been produced and was adopted at the end of 2006.
6.1.3 Digital Maps Working Group
Status: Concluded
Meetings in 2006: None.
A Working Group on Digital Maps was created in the beginning of 2005 with the
objectives of
◊ Define a business model for Public-Private partnerships, to ensure availability of
attributes relevant to eSafety in digital maps
◊ Define requirements for an eSafety digital map database which, in addition to
roadmap data, contains agreed safety attributes for Advanced Driver Assistance
Systems purposes
◊ Create Public/Private cooperation model to collect, maintain, certify and
distribute the eSafety attributes that can be integrated into the digital roadmap
database
In November 2005 it finalized its Final Report – Recommendations, available on:
http://www.esafetysupport.org/download/working_groups/DMWGfinalreport.pdf
6.1.4 eCall Driving Group
Status: Concluded
Meetings in 2006:
Date Meeting details Location
24-25 April 2006 Final DG eCall meeting Brussels, Belgium
252

The eCall Working Group was established at the end of 2002. By mid 2003, the eCall
Working Group (at that point transformed into the eCall Driving Group) had identified
the key players involved in the eCall process (the automotive industry, the mobile
telecommunication industry, the public emergency authorities and associated or
cooperating service organisations, and the public social security organizations and private
insurance companies) and outlined the functionalities of the interfaces to be established
between the players. These players are members of four large “constituencies”: The eCall
Driving Group has developed an Action Plan for Pan-European emergency services.
These services will build on the location-enhanced emergency services being
implemented in the Member States on the basis of the recently adopted recommendation
on the implementation of E-112. Furthermore, these services will include provisions for
more accurate location information and additional safety information.
In July 2005 eight (8) sub-working groups were created within the eCall DG, with the
objective of identifying and solving some of the concrete issues related to the eCall
implementation that the different industries or organisations have. The positioning
papers from the different sub-working groups have been the basis for the
recommendations from the DG eCall for the introduction of the pan-European eCall.
These recommendations cover eCall architecture, performance requirements, the
definition of a Minimum Set of Data (MSD), certification and privacy issues, and were
adopted by the eSafety Forum Plenary in its meeting on 3 May 2006 and are available on
the "toolbox" for eCall on www.esafetysupport.org/en/ecall_toolbox/.
6.1.5 User Outreach Working Group
Status: Concluded
Meetings in 2006:
Date Meeting details Location
06 June 2006 User Outreach meeting Brussels, Belgium
24 April 2006 User Outreach meeting Brussels, Belgium
06 February 2006 User Outreach meeting Brussels, Belgium
The eSafety Forum on 25 March 2004 highlighted the importance of the driver in the
eSafety strategy and underlined that user demand is essential for a positive business case.
It was therefore suggested that a User Outreach Working Group be formed to address
this issue.
The Working Group on User Outreach has defined strategies for increasing awareness of
eSafety to the end user and proposed eSafety campaigns to promote the eSafety systems
available on the market. The main conclusion from the Working Group till now is that
there is a need to increase the effort on user outreach to support the deployment of
eSafety. One proposal from the group has been to create a communication platform for
eSafety outreach, that resulted in the creation of the “eSafetyAware!” platform on 2006.
The Working Group is currently finalising its Final Recommendations that will be
available soon on:
http://www.esafetysupport.org/en/esafety_activities/esafety_working_groups/user_out
reach.htm
253

6.1.6 Implementation Road Maps Working Group
Status: Active
Meetings in 2006:
Date Meeting details Location
14 November 2006 Implementation Road
Map for Dynamic Traffic
Management - Vehicle
Systems Co-operation
Workshop
5 July 2006 14th Meeting of the
Implementation Road
Map Working Group
7 April 2006 13th Meeting of the
Implementation Road
Map Working Group
Brussels, Belgium
Brussels, Belgium
Brussels, Belgium
The eSafety Forum has been diligently working to produce an implementation road map
for eSafety technologies with the objective to support the development of activities in
other eSafety Working Groups. The aim has been to draft a simplified implementation
road map such as essential implementation issues, which has been presented in a draft
report from the Road Map Working Group. The market introduction of Integrated
Vehicle Safety Systems involves policy, technological, societal, business, legal and
consumer aspects. From the public sector point of view, an implementation timetable is
needed in order to plan for investments and determine what other measures are required
to enable take-up. The main objectives of WP 3 are to maintain and update the existing
implementation road map and to maintain a database on safety impacts of eSafety
systems. WP 3 will support the work of building a regularly updated road map with
technical steps and economic implications for the introduction of eSafety Systems.
The work plan 2006-2008 was validated in the Working Group in April. The work
towards more detailed road maps started via the planning of a workshop on dynamic
traffic management and FCD. A survey on road map i.e. priority eSafety system
deployment in the member states was prepared and distributed in the eSafety Support
regional meetings.
The draft implementation road map was produced on the basis of an agreement reached
within the Implementation Road Maps Working Group. The main addition is the new
simplified implementation road map format exemplified for two systems (ESC and
Speed Alert). In addition, security was added as a new issue in the system specific road
maps.
254

An eSafety effects database (http://www.esafety-effects-database.org/) was deployed in
2006 and has been regularly updated by adding all new studies that were brought to the
attention of the consortium. New systems were also added to the eleven first systems at
the time of the opening of the database. Currently, the database contains the following
systems:
• Adaptive head lights
• Alcohol (inter)lock
• Anti-lock braking system (ABS)
• Automatic speed enforcement
• Blind spot monitoring
• Dynamic traffic management (Variable Message Signs)
• eCall
• ESC
• Extended environmental information (extended FCD)
• Lane departure warning
• Local danger warnings
• Obstacle & collision warning
• Real-time traffic information
• Seat belt reminder
• Speed alert
6.1.7 Research and Development Working Group
Status: Active
Meetings in 2006:
Date Meeting Details Location
14 September 2006 RTD WG Meeting Brussels, Belgium
The EU’s Research Programmes - especially the Telematics Application Programme
under the EU’s Fourth Framework Programme and the Information Society
Technologies (IST) programme which is part of the Fifth Framework Programme - have
contributed in realising the leading edge technologies, systems and applications which
form the basis for many of the active safety systems finding their way to the vehicles
today.
255

The development of the Intelligent Vehicle Safety Systems still requires further RTD in
a number of technologies. The critical task is determining the priorities for further
research based on analysis of accident causes and the impact of potential
countermeasures. Therefore, the focus of the Research and Development Working
Group is in actions for determining the priorities for further research. Co-ordinating with
the national research programmes and promoting the European Research Area (ERA) is
a must, as well as reinforcing the international co-operation.
The main tasks of the RTD WG for 2006 were to:
• Advise, support, monitor and review the development, implementation and
outcome of the Strategic Research Agenda for “ICT for Mobility”, FP7.
• Promote the RTD pillar of the Intelligent Car Initiative.
• Survey and support the activities and their synergies at National and EU level.
• Promote. Monitor and Guide the R&D contribution to the:
o achievement of Safe, Clean, Efficient and Secure Road Traffic and
Transport;
o global competitiveness of the EU Industry.
As a contribution to the FP7 Work programme on ICT for Mobility the working group
has issued the document “Stakeholders’ contribution to the Development of FP7
Workprogramme on ICT for Mobility”, reviewing the recommendations on R&D in FP7
as reported from five expert workshops, arranged by DG INFSO, on the following five
topics:
• Mobility Services for People
• Mobility Services for Goods
• Intelligent Vehicle Systems
• Cooperative Systems
• Field Operational Tests
With the aim of focussing on R&D in the ICT for mobility challenge, towards key
societal concerns of traffic safety, efficiency and environmental compatibility as well as
considering competitiveness of the European Industry, the WG RTD has identified, for
the five areas listed above and for related horizontal aspects, a set of R&D priorities for
the early phase of FP7.
Major objectives of research in these areas are to further develop and deploy
technologies, functions and services to enhance traffic safety, efficiency and reduce the
impact on the environment. Additionally the commercial and competitiveness aspects of
European Industry are dimensions to be recognised in outlining future strategies and in
the selection of R&D topics.
For all of the five areas listed above, the European Commission DG INFSO organised
targeted expert meetings to develop and formulate recommendations and priorities for
R&D in FP7. This occurred during a series of five workshops that took place in April –
May 2006. The eSafety Forum, through the Working Group RTD, subsequently engaged
in a sixth workshop where the recommendations of the five areas were reported,
discussed and set in relation with the objectives to improve road transport and European
industrial competitiveness. Additionally, “horizontal” aspects such as standards, and
common communication links were identified as issues belonging to the research agenda.
256

A version of this document was made available on the web site of DG INFSO for a
broad public consultation. The Working Group RTD has reviewed and assessed some 33
written contributions received. The document was amended accordingly and the final
version and is now available on the website
http://www.esafetysupport.org/en/esafety_activities/esafety_working_groups/research
_and_development_.htm.
6.1.8 International Cooperation Working Group
Status: Active
Meetings in 2006:
Date Meeting details Location
11 October 2006 7th International
Cooperation Meeting
London, UK
Priority-defining work has been performed to focus international cooperation on eSafety
issues of international importance. This work is done in close cooperation with key
stakeholders from the USA, Japan, China, India, Canada, Brazil, South Africa, Russia,
Korea and Australia. Japan has also recently set up an international Vehicle Safety
Committee to achieve global standards of vehicle safety, in co-operation with Europe
and the USA.
The last meeting of the International Cooperation Working Group meeting took place in
London on 11 October 2006.
A questionnaire was sent out to the stakeholders.
6.1.9 RTTI Working Group
Status: Active
Meetings in 2006:
Date Meeting details Location
1 December 2006 Fourth meeting of the
RTTI WG
06 November 2006 Third meeting of the
RTTI WG
18 September 2006 Second meeting since
the re-launch of the WG
19 July 2006 First meeting since the
re-launch of the WG
Cologne, Germany
Brussels, Belgium
Brussels, Belgium
Berlin, Germany
257

Real-time traffic and travel information (RTTI) can contribute greatly to safety. In order
to facilitate the access to the public sector data and enable the private and public sectors
to co-operate in the service provision, in 2001, the Commission published a
Recommendation on the deployment of Traffic and Travel services in Europe. The
RTTI Working Group provides further analysis and recommendations for accelerating
the take-up of the measures for accessing the public sector data, enabling the
establishment of public-private partnerships, and the provision of reliable, high-quality
RTTI services in Europe.
The RTTI WG, established in 2003, presented a Report with 12 Recommendations in
October 2005. Since then, further development in the field of RTTI has taken place but
open issues remain with respect to implementation, recommended measures and further
roll-out. On 02 May 2006, the eSafety Forum welcomed the re-launch of the RTTI
Working Group activities. The objectives of the Working Group are now to:
◊ Review the results and recommendations of the Final Report and analyse the
open issues
◊ Focus on traffic related criteria, expectations, and needs
◊ Propose a “Road Map” for the implementation of RTTI
◊ Propose further actions to the Commission
A first working meeting was held in Berlin on 19 July 2006. Work has started examining
the following items:
◊ Generation of primary traffic data (how? where?)
◊ Wider use and development of RDS/TMC
◊ Minimum set of information across borders
◊ Evaluation of traffic data (incl. prognosis)
◊ Distribution of traffic data (media, frequencies)
◊ User interface requirements
6.1.10 Communications Working Group
Status: Active
Meetings in 2006:
Date Meeting details Location
07 September 2006 4th Communications
Working Group Meeting
06 April 2006 3rd Communications
Working Group Meeting
17 January 2006 2nd Communications
Working Group Meeting
Brussels. Belgium
Munich, Germany
Mainz, Germany
258

The WG Communications established in fall 2005 includes all stakeholders in traffic and
road issues that could be positively influenced by communication technologies. (V2V,
V2I, I2I) and has the objective of covering spectrum issues, standardisation and
international cooperation.
6.1.11 ICT for Clean Mobility
Status: Active
Meetings in 2006:
Date Meeting Details Location
6 December
2006
ICT for Clean Mobility WG Kick-off
Meeting
Brussels,
Belgium
The new eSafety Working Group on ICT for Clean Mobility whose aim is to identify and
promote the potential benefits ITS applications & services can bring towards cleaner and
more energy-efficient mobility for people and goods, had its first meeting in Brussels on
6 December 2006 under the chairmanship of Mr.Paul Kompfner from ERTICO and
Mr.Wolfgang Reinhardt from ACEA.
The meeting was attended by representatives from R&D institutes, public authorities,
automotive industry, NGOs, transport & environment industries, and integrated traffic
management specialists.
Certainly there is a need for R&D in basic and applied eSafety technologies, but much
progress can be made by better application and organisation of existing techniques for
Clean and Efficient Mobility.
The top five work-topics for the working group were identified in traffic management,
pre-trip info and planning, driver information and support, route guidance and
optimization, and eco-driving, but the discussion will also be about logistics, databases,
environmental data collection, real-time driving information and the relations between
the information form the traffic network and the engine management.
As next steps the working group will identify current work and state of art in the
mentioned priority areas, will work on a methodology to quantify eco-benefits in the
multi-modal world and to quantify effects of ICT on road network environmental
conditions, will analyze different scenarios and will prepare recommendations for
deployment, identifying barriers and then looking at options to overcome.
259

6.2 Final Recommendations of the eSafety Working Groups
6.2.1 eCall DG Final Recommendations for the introduction of the Pan-
European eCall
On 24-25 April the eCall Driving Group (DG) held its final meeting, aiming to pave the
way for the introduction of the pan-European in-vehicle emergency call system in 2010.
The different sub-working groups under the eCall DG presented the results of their
activities, and a final set of recommendations for the introduction of eCall was agreed.
Participants discussed a series of potential obstacles to full-scale rollout of the pan-
European in-vehicle emergency call. When activated, eCall will automatically transmit a
minimum set of data (MSD) containing information about the vehicle involved in the
accident to the nearest emergency centre (Public Service Answering Point). The
participants discussed what should be included in this MSD and reached an agreement.
However, a final study is needed in order to get an overview of whether the PSAPs have
access to a Vehicle Identification Number (VIN) database to identify the vehicle, or
whether e.g. vehicle make and model should be included as mandatory information in the
MSD.
As the eCall DG remains technology neutral the definition of the performance criteria
for the public eCall service was discussed. An agreement on both the overall
performance criteria and the different domains in the eCall service chain was drafted,
agreed and adopted by the participants.
Finally, the participants updated the rollout plan for the introduction of eCall by
including different milestones, the first being that ALL involved stakeholders, including
the Member States, have to show their commitment by signing the eCall Memorandum
of Understanding by the end of 2006.
The final version of the Recommendations were distributed on 3 May 2006 to the
eSafety Forum members that attended the 5 th eSafety Forum Plenary meting in Brussels.
The complete text of the Recommendations and the appendices are reported in Annex I
of this Addendum.
260

261

ANNEX I -
3 RD ESAFETY
COMMUNICATION -
BRINGING ECALL BACK ON
TRACK -
ACTION PLAN
1.

COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES
Brussels,
COM(2006) XXX
COMMUNICATION FROM THE COMMISSION TO THE EUROPEAN
PARLIAMENT, THE COUNCIL, THE EUROPEAN ECONOMIC AND SOCIAL
COMMITTEE AND THE COMMITTEE OF THE REGIONS
Bringing eCall back on track - Action Plan
(3rd eSafety Communication)
EN EN

COMMUNICATION FROM THE COMMISSION TO THE EUROPEAN
PARLIAMENT, THE COUNCIL, THE EUROPEAN ECONOMIC AND SOCIAL
COMMITTEE AND THE COMMITTEE OF THE REGIONS
1. INTRODUCTION
Bringing eCall back on track - Action Plan
(3rd eSafety Communication)
Road fatalities in the EU-25 have declined by more than 17% since 2001, when the
Commission published its White Paper on European Transport Policy 1 . The European Road
Safety Action Programme 2 and the eSafety Initiative 3 have had a significant impact on this
positive development, and are expected to continue in the medium term to produce further
benefits towards the goal of halving the fatalities by 2010.
However, with around 41.600 deaths and more than 1.7 million injured in 2005, roads remain
unsafe, and further efforts are needed. The pan-European in-vehicle emergency call, eCall,
is estimated to have the potential to save up to 2.500 fatalities annually in EU-25 when fully
deployed, and furthermore to reduce the severity of injuries, to bring significant savings to the
society in healthcare and other costs and to reduce human suffering 4 .
In the framework of the Intelligent Car Initiative 5 , the industry and the public sector have
worked together on a deployment plan that aims at full deployment of eCall from 2009
onwards. This plan is, however, not on track.
2. BRINGING ECALL BACK ON TRACK
The benefits of eCall are recognized by all: the citizens consider it as one of the most wanted
eSafety systems in the car, and over 70% of the respondents say that they would like to have it
in their next car, according to a recent Eurobarometer study 6 . eCall deployment is supported
by the industry, European Parliament, European Commission, user organisations and by some
Member States.
Due to the long lead times in product development, and due to the associated costs, the
automotive industry need certainty on the implementation of the necessary infrastructure in
the Member States before entering the production phase of the eCall equipment in the
vehicles 7 . Similarly, the Member States' commitment is needed by other players, most notably
1 COM(2001) 370 of 12.9.2001: European transport policy for 2010: time to decide
2 COM(2003) 311 of 2.6.2003: European Road Safety Action Programme: Halving the number of road
victims in the European Union by 2010: A Shared responsibility
3 COM(2003) 542 of 15.9.2003: Information and Communications Technologies for Safe and Intelligent
Vehicles
4 COM(2005) 431 of 14.9.2005: Bringing eCall to Citizens
5 COM(2006) 59 of 12.2.2006: On the Intelligent Car Initiative: Raising Awareness of ICT for Smarter,
Safer and Cleaner Vehicles
6 Eurobarometer study on the citizen's perception of road safety and intelligent vehicle safety systems
7 ACEA has expressed in a letter to the Commission that it will not take any further steps until a clear
commitment from the Member States will be provided
EN 2 EN

the telecommunications industry (Mobile Network Operators). Nevertheless, the slow
progress shown by some Member States -especially the large ones- who are crucial for
keeping industry committed has endangered the realisation of the already agreed
deployment plan.
The purpose of this Communication is to present, on the basis of the achieved progress, the
measures that are necessary for solving the current deadlock and for bringing eCall
back on track. Two parallel lines of actions are proposed: Commitment of the Member States
by mid-2007, and a negotiated agreement with the industry by the end of 2007. In addition the
Commission will carry out a set of actions to facilitate the eCall deployment.
3. PROGRESS OF ECALL IMPLEMENTATION IN EUROPE
3.1 Progress at European level
Significant progress in the producing of the specifications, demonstrating the technology and
planning of the deployment phase has been achieved since 2005 by the eCall Driving Group.
This Group, consisting of 138 members representing all stakeholders, produced and published
its Final Recommendations in April 2006 8 . These recommendations cover eCall
architecture, performance requirements and the definition of Minimum Set of Data 9 , and it
addresses also certification and privacy issues. The recommendations were adopted by the
eSafety Forum Plenary in its meeting on 3 May, 2006. Due to the delays on reaching a
commitment from all the Member States, the deployment plan is shifted forward by one
year, and is now the following:
• All key stakeholders should sign the MoU to ensure progress by end of 2006
• Full specification of the eCall system and start of development by mid-2007
• Full-scale field tests should be performed from the beginning of 2008
• Member States should be ready with the upgrade of the PSAPs by September 2009
• Introduction of eCall as standard option in all vehicles type-approved from 1 st September
2010 onward
Signed MoU to ensure progress (incl. MS)
Draft/Rough System Specification
ETSI Technical Specification
Detailed System Specification
Incentive possibilities clarified to support business case
12/2006 06/2007 12/2007 06/2008 12/2008 06/2009 12/2009 06/2010
12/2010 ...
System Development
Field Tests including assessment of performance
Member State rollout of eCall system at PSAPs
Figure 1: eSafety Forum updated eCall Deployment Plan
eCall as standard option in all new type-approved vehicles
8 http://europa.eu.int/information_society/activities/esafety/forum/ecall/index_en.htm
9 Data about the accident sent by the in-vehicle equipment to the emergency call response centres
(PSAP), including accurate location information
EN 3 EN

Another major milestone was the adoption by the European Parliament of a resolution on
eCall 10 , adopted with large majority on 27 April 2006, as the response to the Commission's
Communication "Bringing eCall to Citizens". The resolution supports the implementation of
the pan-European eCall, gives full support to Commission's actions and calls for all
stakeholders, in particular the Member States to pursue the necessary actions for eCall
immediate roll-out.
In addition, at the request of the European Commission, ETSI, with the support of
telecommunication and automotive industry, has progressed towards the definition of a
standard protocol for the transmission of the eCall Minimum Set of Data, which is expected to
be completed by April 2007.
The Commission has taken several actions that support the work of other stakeholders and
promote eCall, following the two Communications on eCall and the Intelligent Car:
Commission Actions supporting eCall Action Plan
– Organising two High-Level meetings with Member States promoting 112 and eCall in
October 2005, plus several expert meetings and bilateral meetings
– Expert Group on Emergency Access 11 established in February 2006; launch of a survey on
the organisation of emergency services in the Member States (including 112, E112)
– Infringement procedures opened against Member States on the concerns of the nonavailability
of caller location information (12 cases against Belgium, Greece, Ireland, Italy,
Cyprus, Latvia, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Hungary, the Netherlands, Portugal and Slovakia)
– Informal PSAP Expert Group 12 established in July 2006, addressing issues specific to
emergency rescue services (112, E112 and eCall) and spreading best practices
– eImpact, in-depth study on the socio-economic benefits of intelligent vehicle safety
systems (including eCall) launched in January 2006 13
– Toolbox, containing all relevant information related to the eCall initiative launched in
November 2005, maintained by eSafetySupport 14
– Eurobarometer study on the citizen's perception of road safety and intelligent vehicle safety
systems launched in January 2006
– Provision of the ICT 2006 standardisation work programme and Request to ETSI (ETSI
MSG, Mobile Services Group) to produce the necessary standards for eCall as a priority
item
– Working with the Member States towards a solution on the data protection and privacy
issues (Art. 29 Working Party, established by Directive 95/46/EC) 15
– Successful demonstration of the full eCall service chain by GST Rescue 16
10 Own-initiative report of the European Parliament, ref. A6-0072/2006, rapporteur Gary Titley,
www.europarl.europa.eu/registre/seance_pleniere/textes_deposes/rapports/2006/0072/P6_A(2006)0072
_EN.doc
11 Expert Group (composed by telecommunication and civil protection experts) created under the
Communications Committee to deal with 112 and its associated forward-looking issues
12 Informal Expert Group (composed by PSAP experts) to discuss and exchange best practices about 112
related issues, with specific focus on eCall.
13 Study funded under FP6, 24 months: www.eimpact.info
EN 4 EN

3.2 Progress in the Member States
In the Communication "Bringing eCall to Citizens" the Commission invites the Member
States to promote 112 and the handling of location information for mobile calls, E112, as
pre-requisite for eCall. As a follow-up, a questionnaire was sent to Member States in early
2006. Its results show that the technical and organisational set-up of emergency rescue
services is very different across the Member States, in many countries there are still problems
in proper operational handling of 112 calls, and handling of location information for
mobile calls is operational in only 7 Member States (see table 1). This indicates clearly
that further actions are required, and this is why the infringement procedures against some
Member States have been started.
Regarding eCall, seven Member States and two Associated States have signed the eCall
Memorandum of Understanding (MoU), while the procedure for the signature has been
started in other thirteen (see Table 1), with different status of advancement. In some
Member States like The Netherlands, Portugal and the United Kingdom the procedure is
advanced; furthermore Germany has confirmed that its signing of the MoU is imminent. In
France, an interministerial group has been created to study eCall deployment in co-operation
with the industry, but the existing emergency infrastructure is inadequate. Institutional,
competencies and organisational issues are reasons quoted by other Member States for lack of
progress. Six Member States (Belgium, Estonia, Latvia, Luxembourg, Poland and
Slovakia) have not reported on progress. Three Member States are planning studies. Ten
Member States are either running trials or planning to do so, including large-scale pilots. The
Netherlands, Finland and Sweden will be the first countries with operational eCall.
Member State
eCall MoU
Implementation status
signature E112 17 eCall
Belgium No progress
reported
Not available No progress
Czech Republic Procedure started Operational (push) 18 Trials planned
Denmark Procedure started Operational (push) Trials planned
Germany Procedure advanced Introduced (pull) Trials planned
Estonia No progress
reported
Introduced (pull) No progress
Greece Signed Planned 2006 No progress
Spain Procedure started Operational 19 (push) Different in the regions
14 Specific support action to support the work of the eSafety Forum, funded under FP6:
www.esafetysupport.org
15 Working Party on the protection of individuals with regard the processing of personal data, set up by
Directive 95/46/EC
16 Subproject of the Integrated Project "Global System for Telematics", funded under FP6.
www.gstproject.org
17 For mobile calls
18 There are two mechanisms to transfer the caller location to the PSAP:
Push: the caller location is sent by the Mobile Network Operator to the PSAP with the voice call
Pull: the PSAP has to request the Mobile Network Operator to send the caller location data
The push mechanism, recommended in the Commission Recommendation C(2003) 2657 of 25.7.2003
on the processing of caller location information in electronic communication networks for the purpose
of location-enhanced emergency call services, is needed for the eCall deployment
EN 5 EN

France Procedure started Introduced (push) Starting a study
Ireland Procedure started Introduced (pull) Starting a study
Italy Signed Not available Trials planned
Cyprus Signed Operational (push) No progress
Latvia No progress
reported
Planned 2007 No progress
Lithuania Signed Not available No progress
Luxembourg No progress
reported
Introduced (pull) No progress
Hungary Procedure started Planned 2006 Trials planned
Malta Procedure started Introduced (pull) Starting a study
The
Netherlands
Procedure advanced Planned 2007 Trials planned
Implementation planned
Austria Procedure started Introduced (pull) Trials planned
Poland No progress
reported
Not available No progress
Portugal Procedure advanced Not available No progress
Slovenia Signed Introduced (pull) No progress
Slovakia No progress
reported
Planned 2006 No progress
Finland Signed Operational (push) Testbed operational,
Trials planned
Implementation planned
Sweden Signed Operational(push) Trials planned
Implementation planned
United
Kingdom
Procedure advanced Operational(push) Trials planned
Norway Signed
Switzerland Signed
Iceland Procedure advanced
Table 1: E112 and eCall Status in the Member States and Associated States, October 2006
4. OBJECTIVES AND ACTION PLAN
4.1 What is needed to get eCall back on track?
The benefits of eCall have been clearly demonstrated by a number of recent studies 20 , it is one
of the most effective safety systems that can be realised on short-term, and it enjoys the
support of road users. eCall will improve the whole emergency rescue chain: it will provide
accurate location of the accident, reduce the communication delay by immediately sending the
necessary information (the so called Minimum Set of Data) to the closest PSAP, and by
allowing the PSAP operator to immediately dispatch the emergency services to the correct
19 Push mechanism operational only in some regions
20 See for example the Finnish AINO Study, www.aino.info/
EN 6 EN

location. The required accuracy of the location information and the needed coverage implicate
the use of Global Navigation Satellite Service (GNSS), using GPS and in the near future the
European Satellite Navigation Systems Galileo 21 which will offer even greater accuracy and
availability. It is also expected that the eCall device with its location and communications
capabilities and its open system architecture will serve as a platform for additional public
sector and commercial services.
However, due to lack of progress, its deployment plan has already been shifted forward by
one year. Some Member States are not on track with implementing the necessary
infrastructure for their emergency rescue services for handling the location information in
E112 calls, or the in-vehicle emergency call, eCalls. The industry should resume its activities
towards the deployment of eCall, and the European Standardisation Organisations (ESOs)
should finalise the necessary standards.
It is vital that the Member States and the industry, with the support of the Commission
take the necessary further actions for getting eCall back on track for 2010 deployment.
The Commission proposes the following two lines of action:
(1) Actions to engage the Member States.
(2) Actions to engage the industry
The Commission will support these two lines of action with a number of other measures to
facilitate the deployment of a pan-European harmonised eCall service, some of which are
already under way.
4.2 Engaging the Member States
(1) The Member States should commit to the implementation of the pan-European eCall,
as specified in the Final Report of the eCall Driving Group, and in particular to its
deployment plan which inter alia calls for immediate signature of the eCall MoU, for
roll-out of the necessary PSAP infrastructure by mid-2009 and conducting field tests
including assessment of performance in the time frame 2007-2009.
(2) The Member States should immediately take the necessary actions to solve together
with the Commission the remaining legal, technical and socio-economic issues
hindering the signature of the eCall MoU, and should commit to the following timetable:
• eCall MoU signed by 15 Member States including Germany, France and UK by
mid 2007
• eCall MoU signed by more that 20 Member States by the end of 2007
(3) The Member States should continue efforts to implement fully operational 112 and
E112 services within their countries, by ensuring that location information is
automatically made available to the PSAPs by the Mobile Network Operators
(MNOs), that 112 calls are properly routed and handled, and that the PSAPs are
upgraded to handle the location information of E112 and eCalls.
21 http://ec.europa.eu/dgs/energy_transport/galileo/index_en.htm
EN 7 EN

(a) To this effect, the Member States should support the work of the Expert Group
on Emergency Access in defining common European requirements for
emergency call routing and handling, handling of emergency calls originating
from mobile terminals without SIM, providing adequate language support, and
on longer term, handling of VoIP emergency calls and handling emergency
calls for people with disabilities.
(b) The Member States should draw up detailed rules to the Mobile Network
Operators to implement the above-mentioned solutions on the call routing,
transmission of location information and handling of the calls originating from
terminals without SIM.
(c) The Member States should, in the framework of the Expert Group on
Emergency Access, cooperate with European Standards Organisations in
developing a set of standards that will enable a uniform handling of the
emergency communications, including location.
(d) The Member States should support the Commission's proposal to establish an
informal PSAP Expert Group and by providing experts and contributing to its
work in identifying appropriate procedures to obtain the necessary accident
related information (i.e., defining a common access mechanism for the VIN 22
databases), in solving the issues of handling of inappropriate calls, optimisation
of PSAPs workload and exchanging best practices
(4) The Member States should support the work of the Article 29 Working Party in its
efforts to find a solution for eCall data handling, which at the same time ensures
individual's safety and security and protects his/her privacy and personal data.
4.3 Engaging the industry
(5) The industry should commit to the implementation of the pan-European eCall, as
specified in the Final Report of the eCall Driving Group, and in particular to its
deployment plan which inter alia calls for start of the development by mid-2007,
conducting field tests including assessment of performance in the time frame 2007-
2009, and introduction of eCall as standard option in all vehicles from 2010 onwards.
(6) The Commission will start, in the beginning of 2007, negotiations with ACEA, JAMA
and KAMA on a voluntary agreement of introducing an eCall in-vehicle device 23 on
all vehicles type-approved from 1 st September 2010 onwards.
(a) The automotive industry should work together with the Commission in
defining the terms of the voluntary agreement, in view of completing the
negotiations by the end of 2007.
(b) The Commission will report to the Council and the European Parliament in the
end of 2007 on the outcome of the negotiations, and on the basis of this
22
Vehicle Identification Number. Access is required for extracting vehicle type information, which is
necessary for the rescue operations.
23
A device capable of manual or automatic triggering of eCall, determining precise location and sending
the minimum set of data with agreed protocol together with voice communication link to PSAP
EN 8 EN

outcome either conclude the voluntary agreement, with a monitoring
mechanism, or propose further measures.
(7) The industry should commit to follow the recommendations proposed by the art. 29
Working Party 24 to ensure adequate protection of the citizens' privacy and personal
data.
(8) The automotive and telecommunication industries should continue supporting the
work done by the European Standardisation Organisations in finalising the necessary
standards for the pan-European eCall service.
4.4 Facilitating deployment
(9) The Commission will support the work of the Expert Group on Emergency Access, the
PSAP Expert Group and the Article 29 Working Party in their efforts in finding the
necessary solutions that enable eCall deployment.
(10) The Commission will consider, as part of the ongoing review of the regulatory
framework for electronic communications 25 an update to the provisions of the
Universal Service Directive to ensure that caller location is made available to
emergency services, with provisions on the charging for the location information.
(11) The Commission will support, through mandates when necessary, the development of
standards by the European Standardisation Organisations (ETSI, CEN) for the
Minimum Set of Data (MSD) transmission in the telecommunications networks, MSD
protocol and contents, certification procedures and telecommunications networks –
PSAP interface.
(12) In the framework of the Intelligent Car Initiative, the Commission will continue
supporting the eCall deployment plan:
(a) The Commission will support public awareness actions, media campaigns and
education of users on the benefits of eCall. In particular, the Commission will
support campaigns of the eSafety Aware Platform 26 .
(b) The Commission will support, through the research and technological
development funding of the ICT priority in the 7 th Framework Programme and
in the Competitiveness and Innovation Programme (CIP), Field Operational
Tests of the eCall service, aiming at large scale tests with impact assessment of
the benefits and user acceptance
(13) The Commission will support automotive, telecommunications and insurance
industries, the Member States and other stakeholders in developing a positive business
case for eCall, including assessment of the use of incentives.
24 Working document on data protection and privacy implications in eCall initiative:
http://ec.europa.eu/justice_home/fsj/privacy/docs/wpdocs/2006/wp125_en.pdf
25 COM(2006) 334 of 29.6.2006: Review of the EU Regulatory Framework for electronic
communications networks and services
26 A platform aiming at user awareness of intelligent vehicle safety systems, which is being established on
the basis of the work of the eSafety Forum.
EN 9 EN

5. CONCLUSIONS
While the number of tragic road accidents remains high, all road safety stakeholders have to
be ready to work together to deploy, as soon as possible, safety systems that can mitigate the
consequences of injuries these accidents cause. Studies indicate that eCall is one of the most
efficient, affordable in-vehicle safety systems that can be deployed on short term. A large
majority of the users understand its value and want eCall with their next vehicle. The industry
has worked with other stakeholders in the eCall Driving Group, developing the necessary
specifications. The European Parliament has given its full support. The time has now come,
for the Member States to take the commitment and implement the necessary infrastructure in
their emergency services. This will enable eCall to return to right track, and the industry to
deploy it in all vehicles from 2010 onwards. We cannot wait to save 2500 lives per year.
EN 10 EN

ANNEX 1: GLOSSARY OF TERMS
112 Single European Emergency Call Number, introduced by Council Decision
91/396/EEC
ACEA Association des Constructeurs Européens d'Automobiles (European
Automobile Manufacturers Association)
CEN Comité Européen de Standardisation (European Committee for
Standardisation)
E112 Location enhanced emergency call. The Universal Service Directive requires
all mobile and fixed telephone operators to make available location
information for every emergency call. E112 for mobile calls is particularly
relevant for eCall.
eCall Pan-European in-vehicle emergency call. The emergency call is generated
either manually by the vehicle occupants or automatically via activation of
in-vehicle sensors when an accident occurs. When activated, the in-vehicle
eCall device will establish a 112 call carrying both voice and data about the
incident directly to the nearest PSAP
EGEA Expert Group on Emergency Access
ETSI European Telecommunication Standard Institute
EU European Union
Eurobarometer Surveys done by the European Commission to analyse the Public Opinion of
the European citizens. The one enquiring about eCall was based on 13,500
interviews from all Member States
FP6 6 th European Union Framework Programme for Research and Technological
Development
ICT Information and Communication Technologies
JAMA Japan Automobile Manufacturers Association
KAMA Korea Automobile Manufacturers Association
MNO Mobile Network Operator
MoU Memorandum of Understanding
MSD Minimum Set of Data
PSAP Public Safety Answering Point, in charge of responding emergency calls. A
PSAP could be a Public Authority or a private service provider operating
under the control of a Public Authority
SIM Subscriber Identification Module
VoIP Voice over Internet Protocol
EN 11 EN

1.
ANNEX II -
RECOMMENDATIONS OF
THE DG ECALL FOR THE
INTRODUCTION OF THE
PAN-EUROPEAN ECALL

Recommendations of the DG eCall
for the introduction of the
pan-European eCall
April 2006
Version 2.0
Author(s)
eCall Driving Group

Table of content
CHAPTER 1 - ESAFETY FORUM......................................................................................................... 1
CHAPTER 2 - ECALL PROCESS.......................................................................................................... 2
2.1 DG ECALL ......................................................................................................................................... 2
2.2 ECALL MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING (MOU) ....................................................................... 3
2.3 HIGH-LEVEL MEETINGS ..................................................................................................................... 3
2.4 DIRECTIVES, COMMUNICATIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS............................................................. 3
CHAPTER 3 - ECALL REQUIREMENTS............................................................................................ 5
3.1 ECALL ARCHITECTURE ...................................................................................................................... 5
CHAPTER 4 - ECALL PERFORMANCE CRITERIA........................................................................ 7
4.1 ECALL SERVICE CHAIN....................................................................................................................... 7
4.2 END-TO-END PERFORMANCE CRITERIA ............................................................................................. 7
4.2.1 Performance criteria end-to-end timing.................................................................................... 8
4.2.2 Performance criteria – eCall generator.................................................................................... 8
4.2.3 Performance criteria – Mobile network .................................................................................. 11
4.2.4 Performance criteria – Public Safety Answering Point (PSAP).............................................. 11
4.3 TRANSPORT PROTOCOL ................................................................................................................... 11
4.4 ECALL CERTIFICATION .................................................................................................................... 12
CHAPTER 5 - OTHER ISSUES............................................................................................................ 13
5.1 STATUS OF 112 AND E112 IMPLEMENTATION ................................................................................. 13
5.2 ECALL DEPLOYMENT PLAN ............................................................................................................. 13
5.3 PRIVACY .......................................................................................................................................... 14
5.4 PSAP STRUCTURE ........................................................................................................................... 14
5.5 ECALL BUSINESS CASE.................................................................................................................... 15
CHAPTER 6 - FINAL RECOMMENDATIONS................................................................................. 17
CHAPTER 7 - APPENDIX LIST .......................................................................................................... 18

Chapter 1 - eSafety Forum
Recommendations of the DG eCall for the introduction of the pan-European
With fatalities on the road across the EU of more than 40.000 people every year, the European Commission
recognises that the current measures towards reducing the fatality number is not enough. In the White Paper
on European transport police from 2001, the European Commission proposed that the European Union
should set itself the target of halving the number of road fatalities by 2010.
One of the initiatives from the European Commission is the establishment of the eSafety Forum, which is a
joint industry/public initiative for improving road safety by using new Information and Communications
Technologies. The overall objective is to join forces and to build up a European strategy to accelerate the
research and development, deployment and use of Intelligent Integrated Safety Systems including Advanced
Driver Assistance Systems (ADAS) for increasing road safety in Europe.
The eSafety Forum identified 28 recommendations on how road safety could be improved through new
technologies. 1 The 28 recommendations have lead to the establishment of different working groups under the
eSafety Forum, which are developing recommendations towards the implementation of specific technologies
or applications.
One of the working groups is the Driving group eCall (DG eCall) established at the end of 2002. The DG
eCall identified the key players involved in the eCall process in mid-2003 and outlined the functionalities of
the interfaces to be established between the players. These players are members of four large
“constituencies”:
� The automotive industry;
� The mobile telecommunication industry;
� The public emergency authorities and associated or cooperating service organisations;
� The public social security organizations, private insurance companies and Automobile Clubs.
eCall was identified as a high priority topic by the eSafety Forum. ERTICO and ACEA, the two co-Chairs of
the DG eCall together with the members of the DG eCall and the European Commission have since the
establishment worked towards preparing these recommendations that should facilitate making eCall a reality
in all Member States and as standard option in all new vehicles type-approved from 1 September 2010
onwards.
1 eSafety Forum – 28 Recommendations: http://www.esafetysupport.org/en/esafety_activities/28_recommendations/
April 2006 1 Version 2.0
eCall

Chapter 2 - eCall Process
2.1 DG eCall
Recommendations of the DG eCall for the introduction of the pan-European
The DG eCall has today 138 members 2 from all stakeholder groups involved in the eCall service and value
chain.
The DG eCall has organised a large variety of meetings in order to build consensus on the approach towards
a full-scale deployment of eCall. 3 The meetings had the aim to clarify the state of art, define the functional
architecture, specify the system, define the performance criteria for all levels of the service chain, outline the
costs and benefits for all stakeholders in the value chain and solve organisational issues. Besides these,
several dedicated meetings have been organised with specific stakeholder groups with the objective to obtain
specific input or to widely inform about the necessary actions for a specific stakeholder group in the
deployment phase of eCall.
Several sub-working groups under DG eCall were also established in July 2005 with the objective to solve
different identified open issues related to both the service chain and value chain. A list of the different sub-
working groups and the specific objectives can be found in Table 1. The conclusions from the groups are
outlined in these recommendations and all reports are attached as appendixes under the relevant chapter.
Name Objective
Business Case 1 (BC.1) Create an overview of available studies today
Business Case 2 (BC.2)
Cost / benefits for the Insurance Industry –
potential business case
Business Case 3 (BC.3)
Vehicle manufactures to define the costs of the
In-Vehicle System
eCall Generator 1 (EG.1)
Identify the performance criteria related to the
eCall chain
eCall Generator 2 (EG.2)
High level requirements for a eCall in-vehicle
system (Supplier perspective)
eCall Generator 3 (EG.3)
Define the functional requirements and the
specifications for the eCall generator
Public Safety Answering Define the PSAP requirements regarding
Point (PSAP.1)
receiving and handling eCall
Certification
Define the certification procedure regarding the
complete eCall chain
Table 1: Different sub-working groups working under the DG eCall, 2005 onwards
2 Total DG eCall membership list, see appendix 1
3 A Complete list of eCall meetings, 2005 onwards can be found in appendix XXX
April 2006 2 Version 2.0
eCall

Recommendations of the DG eCall for the introduction of the pan-European
2.2 eCall Memorandum of Understanding (MoU)
The DG eCall released a Memorandum of Understanding (MoU) 4 in August 2004 that calls for participators
to actively investigate feasible and sustainable eCall solutions and potential business cases. The MoU lists
the necessary arrangements for implementing the eCall action plan and sets out the measures to be taken by
the European Commission, Member States, the automotive industry, telecoms and insurance industries. The
key message in the MoU is that eCall should work in any EU Member State and that eCall (voice and data)
should be based on using the single pan-European emergency call number 112.
The MoU has today 59 5 signatures from different stakeholders, but are still missing major stakeholders such
as a large majority of the EU Member States despite the efforts made by the European Commission and
different members of the DG eCall to obtain these signatures.
2.3 High-level meetings
Three high-level meetings have been organised by the European Commission, two with the European
Member States and one with related Industry. Both the Member States and the Industry focused in the first
two meetings on defining a roadmap for the implementation of eCall. The third high-level meeting with the
Member States was held as a reaction to a Communication from the European Commission calling for the
Member States to sign the MoU and take necessary steps to deploy eCall. 6
2.4 Directives, Communications and recommendations
The directives and communications relevant for emergency calls in the European Union (112, E112 and
eCall) are: 7
� The Council Decision on the introduction of a single European emergency call number
(91/396/EEC)
� The Universal Service Directive 2002/22/EC
� Directive on privacy and electronic communications 2002/58/EC
� Directive on data protection 95/46/EC
� Communication on European Road safety action program C(2003) 311
� The Communication on ICT for safe and intelligent vehicles C(2003) 542
� The Commission Recommendation on processing of caller location information C(2003) 2657
� The 2 nd eSafety Communication: Bringing eCall to Citizens C(2005) 431
The latest Communication – Bringing eCall to Citizens has been taken up by the European Parliament who
drafted a report on eCall recognizing the importance of the eCall system and provide to the European
4 The MoU can be found in appendix 3
5 Complete list of MoU signatures can be found in appendix 4 - Last update 15/03/2006
6 Main conclusions from the three high-level meetings can be found in appendix 5
7 All Communications and Directives can be found in appendix 6
April 2006 3 Version 2.0
eCall

Recommendations of the DG eCall for the introduction of the pan-European
Commission its support by a large majority vote. The European Parliament thereby has requested the EU
Member States to take the necessary actions in deploying eCall. 8
The Universal Service Directive (USD), which includes the obligation for the Member States to ensure an
appropriate answer and handling of the calls made to 112, as well as the obligation for the Public Telephone
Network Operators to make caller location information available to authorities handling emergencies, to the
extent technically feasible, is under revision during the year 2006. Some issues concerning E112 and eCall
services may be considered for inclusion in the proposal of the European Commission for the revised USD
expected by end 2006.
8 Draft Report on Road safety: bringing eCall to citizens by the European Parliament, Committee on Transport and
Tourism, Provisional 2005/2211(INI) Rapporteur: Gary Titlet can be found in appendix 7
April 2006 4 Version 2.0
eCall

Chapter 3 - eCall Requirements
Recommendations of the DG eCall for the introduction of the pan-European
DG eCall recommends an eCall architecture, which is based on a quasi-simultaneous voice-data link from an
eCall generator to a first level PSAP 9 . The DG eCall recommends that the following essential requirements
for transmitting both voice and data through the mobile networks should be adopted:
� Pan-European solution:
o Roaming capability
April 2006 5 Version 2.0
eCall
o Belonging to GSM Standards (ETSI, 3GPP) that must be available for long enough to
support vehicle life cycle
o Commonly implemented by all European Telcos & within preferably all GSM modules
� Real time transport mechanism
� Quasi simultaneous voice call and data transfer
� Secure transport and routing mechanism (E112)
� Automatic Acknowledgement
More specific requirements regarding the eCall system have been defined by the stakeholders involved in the
DG eCall sub-working groups. 10
3.1 eCall architecture
The DG eCall recommends that the architecture for eCall, as illustrated in Figure 1, is adopted by all
stakeholders when implementing eCall. The process is described below.
Figure 1: eCall system overview
9 A PSAP could be a Public Authority or a private service provider operating under the control of a Public Authority
10 A PSAP requirements clarification paper can be found in Appendix 8

Recommendations of the DG eCall for the introduction of the pan-European
1) The eCall Generator initiate the eCall by sensors triggered and/or manually, send the in-vehicle
April 2006 6 Version 2.0
eCall
triggered eCall to a PSAP. The eCall consists of two elements: a pure voice (audio) telephone call
based on 112 and the minimum set of data (MSD)
2) The eCall (data + voice) carried through the mobile network, is recognized by the mobile network
operator (MNO) as a 112 emergency call, and is first handled by the MNO. Based on the 112
handling the MNO enrich the call with the CLI (caller line identification), and at the same time,
according to the USD and the E112 recommendation, add the best location available (based on the
best effort principle 11 ). After the 112 handling, the telecom operator delivers the 112-voice together
with the CLI, mobile location and the eCall MSD to the appropriate PSAP.
3) The PSAP transmits an acknowledgement to the eCall Generator specifying that the MSD have been
properly received.
11 The Commission Recommendation on processing of caller location information C(2003) 2657

Recommendations of the DG eCall for the introduction of the pan-European
Chapter 4 - eCall Performance Criteria
The overall performance criteria for the eCall service chain have been derived from a range of studies and
experiences from the various stakeholder groups involved 12 . Furthermore, experiences from comparable
automatic and manual vehicle emergency or assistance calling systems and current PSAP operation systems
and emergency response systems have been taken into account.
4.1 eCall service chain
eCall involves a number of different stakeholders all with separate responsibilities and tasks, which even
overlap. In order to provide a clear understanding of the different aspects of the eCall chain six different
domains have been identified see Figure 2.
Vehicle eCall
Triggering
System
112 eCall
Trigger (eCall
sensors or
manual)
Transmission
over vehicle bus
eCall
Generator
(EG)
In-vehicle
software triggers
112 call
in-vehicle
communication
module initiates
112 call and
send MSD
EG
2
MNO
Receive 112 call
and MSD
Figure 2: The 6 domains of
the eCall service chain
4.2 End-to-end performance criteria
Mobile
Network
Operator
(MNO)
Enrich 112 call
with CLI, celluar
location and
MSD
MNO
2
PSAP
Forward 112
voice, CLI,
celluar location
and MSD to
PSAP
the overall performance criteria be 13 The DG eCall recommends that the minimum target for
:
� By 2010 – 85% of all activated and sent eCalls should successfully 14 reach the PSAP
� By 2015 – 89% of all activated and sent eCalls should successfully reach the PSAP
� By 2020 – 92% of all activated and sent eCalls should successfully reach the PSAP
12 Clarification Paper EG1- eCall Performance Criteria can be found in appendix 9
PSAP
Answer 112
voice call,
decode and
visualise celluar
location and
MSD
13 Revision clause is added with the objective to evaluate the overall performance criteria in 2014 for 2015
14 Successful means that, as a minimum, the MSD has to be transmitted and received by the 1 st level PSAPs.
April 2006 7 Version 2.0
eCall

4.2.1
Performance criteria end-to-end timing
Recommendations of the DG eCall for the introduction of the pan-European
Shortening the time for response is crucial in emergency handling.
The DG eCall recommends that the
performance criteria related to the timing in the eCall service chain be kept according to Figure 3.
Figure 3 Timing performance criteria for the eCall service chain
4.2.2
Performance criteria – eCall generator
Within the DG eCall, ACEA ne the functional specifications for the eCall
16 has taken on the task to defi
generator and invited suppliers, service providers and MNO to a joint workgroup. Another sub-working
group lead by Autoliv 17 was established to evaluate technical studies related to this subject and to discuss a
number of issues like nomadic or embedded, SIM or SIM-less solutions, manual and automatic activation
strategy for the eCall Generator
llowing performance criteria target for the eCall generator 18 The DG eCall recommends the fo
:
� By 2010 – 90% of all accidents with a severity that meets the thresholds for triggering an
eCall
should successfully 19 be delivered by the eCall generator to the mobile network;
� By 2015 – 95% of all accidents with a severity that meets the thresholds for triggering an eCall
should successfully be delivered by the eCall generator to the mobile network; and
15
The T1 = 20 seconds might need extension in case data protection or network capacity issues require putting the
system in a “sleeping” mode.
16
The full functional specifications of the In-Vehicle system from ACEA can be found in appendix 10
17 High level requirements for the in-vehicle system by DG eCall sub-working group EG.2 (Suppliers perspective) can
be found in appendix 11
18 Revision clause is added with the objective to evaluate the target for the performance criteria in 2014 for 2015
19 Successful means that, as a minimum, the MSD has to be transmitted and received by the 1 st level PSAPs.
April 2006 8 Version 2.0
15
eCall

Recommendations of the DG eCall for the introduction of the pan-European
� By 2020 – 98% of all accidents with a severity that meets the thresholds for triggering an eCall
should successfully be delivered by the eCall generator to the mobile network.
It is furthermore recommended that the eCall generator is reprogrammable in order to e.g. change the MSD
information
on the Service Provider
4.2.2.1 Automatic eCall Triggering
strategy
The automatic eCall trigger should be safe, roust and designed so that a
generated by the eCall generator.
Therefore the DG eCall recommends
that:
� ≤ 150 meters (in 95% of all cases)
April 2006 9 Version 2.0
eCall
minimum of false eCalls are
� The Automatic eCall trigger signal is generated in the airbag control module and/or a combination of
�
other sensor data (e.g. gyro, radar, axel load, speed);
� The eCall shall be generated to reflect as many different crash types as possible (e.g. front, rear, side
provided that this information can be used in PSAPs with a sufficient level of reliability to evaluate
4.2.2.2
Manual eCall Triggering strategy
The DG eCall has the following recommendations for manual triggering of an eCall
� Actions should be taken when designing the eCall generator to avoid accidental manual triggering.
�
�
�
4.2.2.3
and roll crashes);
� Trigger thresholds based on delta velocity could be send as additional optional data to the PSAP,
the likeliness of serious injuries; and
The vehicle manufacturers are responsible for determination of the automatic eCall trigger signal.
Different scenarios have been discussed within the DG eCall, such as; holding
the eCall bottom
down for three seconds to trigger the eCall or push the button twice within 5 seconds;
The manual trigger strategy depends on the specific human machine interface for the eCall generator
and it is recommended that the vehicle manufactures individually design the eCall generator
in such
a way that unintended activation is minimized;
If possible a roadside assistance button should be added to the vehicle with the objective to lower the
amount of potential irrelevant manual eCalls, but
it is also recognized that this might not be possible
for low cost eCall solutions; and
Appropriate education should be given to the users on the right use of the eCall system in order to
minimise the number of manual calls
without emergency content.
Precise Location
The precise location of the vehicle involved in an accident
is an important factor for the PSAP operator in
making the right risk assessment and dispatching the emergency service vehicles to the correct location. The
DG eCall recommends that the target for the precise location should be based on the best performance that
satellite based location can provide at any given time. Currently guaranteed as a minimum of:
� ≤ 50 meters (in 50% of all cases); and

4.2.2.4 eCall Minimum Set of Data
(MSD)
Recommendations of the DG eCall for the introduction of the pan-European
The requirements to the minimum set of data
were set by a group of emergency services involved in the DG
eCall. The requirements were based on the information that emergency agencies would need to speed up the
response tim e and to ensure a correct deployment of emergency resources.
The DG eCall recommends that the below MSD content should be standardized by an appropriate
standardization body.
Byte
No.
Name Size Type Unit Description
1 Control 1 Byte Integer M Bit 7: 1 = Automatic activation
2 Vehicle
identification
20
Bytes
Bit 6: 1 = Manual
activation
Bit 5: 1 = Test Call
Bit 4: 1= No Confidence in position
Bit 3: Entity type could be added
Bit 2: Entity type could
be added
Bit 1: Entity type could be added
Bit 0: Entity type could be added
String M VIN number according ISO 3779
3 Time stamp 4 Bytes Integer UTC sec M Timestamp of incident event
4 Location
5 Service
Provider
4 Bytes Integer milliarcsec M GNSS Position Latitude (WGS84)
4 Bytes Integer milliarcsec M GNSS Position Longitude (WGS84)
April 2006 10 Version 2.0
eCall
1 Byte Integer Degree M Direction of Travel (Based on last 3 positions)
4 Bytes Integer IPV4 O Service Provider IP Address
6 Optional Data 106 String To be defined O Further data on e.g. crash information encoded
Sum:
Bytes
140
Bytes
in XML Format
M – Mandatory data field
O – Optional data field (default blank characters)
Uncertainty exists on whether the PSAPs in all Member States has access to a VIN database for both national
and
foreign registered vehicles. Therefore the DG eCall recommends that a study is made with the objective
to evaluate whether for identifying the vehicle the VIN is sufficient information for the emergency services
or e.g. vehicle make and model needs to be added as mandatory fields in the MSD.
For privacy issues the DG eCall recommends that the study also contain the feasibility of masking
information in the VIN which is not necessary for answering the emergency call.

4.2.3 Performance criteria – Mobile network
Recommendations of the DG eCall for the introduction of the pan-European
The Mobile Network Operators should treat eCall as an E112 call with the same priority and reliability
through
their core network. eCall is a pan-European service so full roaming capabilities should be provided
by MNOs.
4.2.4 Performance criteria – Public Safety Answering Point (PSAP)
The DG eCall recommends that the performance criteria for the PSAPs regarding handling of all received
calls are 99% .
The Operational procedures related to the PSAP operator when receiving an emergency call differ from
Member State to Member State but the performance indicators have a common denominator, namely that in
all Member
States they
April 2006 11 Version 2.0
eCall
are laid down in lawgiving regulations. Therefore the DG eCall recommends that
these operational procedures be followed when handling an eCall.
4.2.4.1 Map accuracy
In the case of an emergency call, one critical phase is to locate precisely
on a map the position of the caller
from GNSS coordinates provided in the MSD and to derive a location which can be sent to the emergency
service vehicle.
The recommended performance criteria for the mapping accuracy are:
� Road geometry
o Completeness
of the road geometry down to the lowest local level; and
o Accuracy of the road geometry is precise to 15 meters
� Road naming
o In Artery category 1 to 4: 99.9% must have a name;
o
o
In Artery category 5: 97% must have a name; and
Each road name must be the correct.
When possible the DG eCall recommends that the PSAP’s use a map-matching tool in order to prevent
potential “errors”,
and thereby increase the accuracy.
4.3
Transport Protocol
In order to facilitate and guarantee roaming, common standardized interfaces and data transfer protocols are
needed. As an action to support a full pan-European service the European Commission has requested ETSI to
n the eCall generator and the PSAP along with the transport protocol 21 standardize the eCall interface betwee
.
ETSI_MSG (European Telecommunication Standardization Institute – Mobile Standards Group) has taken
on this request and has looked at the different technologies that could be used for transmitting in-vehicle
20 Measured against WGS84.
21 The implementation of a pan-European in-vehicle emergency call (eCall): Need for standards, 5. January 2005, Letter
from European Commission
Director-General Information Society (INFSO-C5/AV/JJ/es D(2004)
20

Recommendations of the DG eCall for the introduction of the pan-European
voice and the MSD to the PSAP. The ETSI_MSG has noted that the actual study on the different technical
solutions available is carried out in the 3GPP (3rd Generation Partnership Project).
Even though ETSI_MSG has no final response to the European Commission yet, two different solutions are
currently on the table:
� In-band modem; and
� USSD – Unstructured Supplementary Services Data
The final decision is expected to be presented to the European Commission at the next ETSI_MSG meeting
in May
2006.
GSME has also conducted a study to support the ETSI_MSG work on the transport protocol. 22 The
conclusion of this study is that the preferred eCall MSD signalling system should be based on a in-band
modem/signalling
application.
It is strongly recommended by the DG eCall that the European Commission closely follow the
standardization work and that they
encourage ETSI to provide a standard as early as possible. DG eCall also
recommends
that representatives from all stakeholders contribute to the standardization activities on eCall.
4.4 eCall Certification
In order to ensure the end user that the eCall service meet the performance criteria outlined in this document
a certification procedure has been proposed
by the Standardization sub-working group (ST.4) under the DG
eCall. 23
In relation to certification of eCall the DG eCall recommends that:
� The
vehicle manufactures should be responsible for the certification of the eCall generator using
existing certification procedures;
� Mobile Network Operators should be responsible for the certification
of their network; and
� The PSAPs should be responsible for the certification of the PSAP system along with the PSAP
operators’ procedures for handling an eCall.
Furthermore
DG eCall recommends that interoperability testing in done with the involvement of all
stakeholders in the eCall chain with the objective to ensure that the eCall service performs according to the
overall
performance criteria.
22 Options for eCall MSD signalling, GSME Position, 21 April 2006 – attached as Appendix 12
23 Certification sub-working group can be found in appendix 13
April 2006 12 Version 2.0
eCall

Chapter 5 - Other issues
Recommendations of the DG eCall for the introduction of the pan-European
5.1 Status of 112 and E112 implementation
DG eCall recommends that the European Commission ensure that both 112 and E112 is implemented by All
Member States, as this is vital for the deployment of eCall. The European Commission has established an
Expert Group on Emergency Communications with representatives from telecommunication and Civil
Protection from all Member States that are working to ensure that 112 and E112 is implemented as intended.
The current status is that 112 is functional in all Member States (although with different quality of services)
and that E112 is fully operational in 14 of the 25 Member States. The European Commission has started
infringement procedures against 11 countries due to the non-availability of caller location information to
emergency. 24
5.2 eCall Deployment plan
The Road Map for eCall roll-out has been agreed by DG eCall as outlined and illustrated in Figure 4:
� All key stakeholders shall sign the MoU to ensure progress by end of 2006.
� Full specification of the eCall system and start of development by mid-2007
� Full-scale field tests to be performed from the beginning of 2008
� All key Member States ready with upgrade of PSAPs September 2009
� Introduction of eCall as standard option in all vehicles type-approved from 1 st September 2010
onwards
Signed MoU to ensure progress (incl. MS)
Draft/Rough System Specification
Figure 4: eCall Deployment plan (Road map)
It is recommended by DG eCall that all involved stakeholders follow the agreed Road Map. Delay of any of
the above mentioned milestones could have a direct impact on the following milestones and thus delay the
eCall introduction.
ETSI Technical Specification
Detailed System Specification
Incentive possibilities clarified to support business case
12/2006 06/2007 12/2007 06/2008 12/2008 06/2009 12/2009 06/2010 12/2010 ...
System Development
Field Tests including assessment of performance
Member State rollout of eCall system at PSAPs
24 Implementation status of E112 and eCall can be found in Appendix 14
April 2006 13 Version 2.0
eCall
eCall as standard option in all new type-approved vehicles

5.3 Privacy
Recommendations of the DG eCall for the introduction of the pan-European
In order to protect the privacy of the citizens DG eCall recommends that eCall is considered as a public
service build on top of the pan-European single emergency call number 112, which means that the data
controller will be a Public Safety Answering Point, or a private
organization appointed by the public
authorities to perform that role. DG eCall also recommends that all stakeholders involved will be obliged to
comply with all directives related to the protection of data and the privacy of the citizens in relation to 112.
The different Directives related to the single European emergency number 112 and data protection can be
found in chapter 2.4. 25
The DG eCall recommends that the MSD include only the minimum required information needed by the
emergency services to ensure an adequate response.
The DG eCall recommends that the citizen will be informed about the existence of the eCall service at the
moment of buying/hiring a vehicle, including
the information of the data that will transferred to the PSAP,
and that the contract will include the explicit acceptance of the citizen of the eCall service. The
April 2006 14 Version 2.0
eCall
citizen
shou ld have the possibility to ask for a disconnection of the service at the moment of purchase and should
have
the possible to ask for a re-connection of the service at a later stage.
DG eCall recommends that when implementing eCall it is ensured that it will
not be possible to track the
vehicle
at all times. It is recommended to make eCall a “sleeping” application on the eCall generator that
only comes to life
when the eCall generator detect an incident serious enough for triggering an automatic
eCall or the vehicle occupants generate a manual eCall.
5.4 PSAP structure
DG eCall recommends that PSAPs across Europe implement eCall as soon as possible. It is also
recommended that Member States investigate the possibility to potentially revise the current PSAP structures
e.g. through public/private partnerships in order to minimize the necessary investments.
The work within DG eCall has identified a number of possible 112 structures across Europe and it has seen
that various possibilities exist depending on national laws and regulation and political organizations. The
following examples are given on how Member States could build their emergency call structure,
acknowledging that many more would be possible:
25
� Two level of PSAPs, or body 26
PSAP1 and PSAP2 served by the same Public
� Public operated PSAP1;
� Service provider operating as PSAP1 under the control of a Emergency Agency/Public Authority
(e.g. Sweden); and
Issues on Privacy by Jan Malenstein 8 April 2005 can be found in appendix 15
26 PSAP1 being the first point of contact for eCall and PSAP2 being the actual emergency operator handling the
emergency situation

Recommendations of the DG eCall for the introduction of the pan-European
� Telecom Operator operating as PSAP1 under the control of a Emergency Agency/Public Authority
(e.g. UK).
5.5 eCall Business Case
DG eCall, different related projects and Member States has carried out studies in order to define the costs
and benefits of deploying eCall.
All studies carried out demonstrated that benefit to cost ratio
would be between 1.3 and 8.5. 27
The results of the studies has been derived from the following gains:
� Automatic alert and precise location will reduce by an average 10 minutes the rescue time in rural
raised the conclusion that eCall has a direct socio-economic impact:
� By implementing eCall 3 to 15 % of fatalities can be avoided (large bracket due to country related
The cost benefit ratio has been calculated without taking into
account any potential side benefits such as
improved traffic management, and efficiency of rescue operations. It has been concluded that the Public
sector will obtain most of the benefits,
followed by the end users. Non-direct financial benefits such as image
DG eCall acknowledge that eCall could also improve rescue efficiency (then reducing
rescue cost per
accident)
and reduce consequences on traffic.
Moreover the DG eCall acknowledge that the adoption of the eCall System enriched with
information from a
service provider could only occur
through an agreement between the end user and/or the OEM and the
Service
Provider and that such an agreement should comply to the regulation on data protection included in
chapter 2.4.
April 2006 15 Version 2.0
eCall
area (50% gain over existing alert), and by 3 to 4 minutes in urban accidents (40% gain). Knowing
that most critical accidents occur by night in rural areas, eCall benefit in reducing rescue time is
expected in the high of the bracket. This varies from country to country, but all studies (EU and US)
context, as current rescue efficiency, road and population distribution…)
� By implementing eCall up to 15% of serious injuries can be changed to slight injuries.
building, social care and improved road management, have been left out from all studies
Furthermore DG eCall acknowledge that the effect of eCall could be further improved in case additional
vehicle and personal related information are provided from a service provider, see Figure 5.
27 More details on the different studies can be found in appendix 16

Recommendations of the DG eCall for the introduction of the pan-European
Figure 5: Extended eCall system
DG eCall
recommends that a standardised interface between PSAPs and Service Provides should be
developed
and agreed upon.
April 2006 16 Version 2.0
eCall

Recommendations of the DG eCall for the introduction of the pan-European
Chapter 6 - Final Recommendations
The DG eCall members recommend that the architecture, definitions and performance criteria given in this
report should be followed when deploying eCall across Europe by all involved stakeholders.
Furthermore, the DG eCall members call for a number of actions and encourage the eSafety Forum to ensure
that these are carried out:
• Calls for Member States to take all necessary decisions and action for deploying eCall including
signing the MoU. The DG eCall members favor the voluntary approach currently taken.
• Calls for the European Commission to continue its effort to pursue
the deployment of eCall through
April 2006 17 Version 2.0
eCall
all available mechanisms including closely following the ongoing standardization work on the
transport protocol and encouraging ETSI to provide a standard as early as possible.
• Calls for eSafety Support to continue providing the necessary support on helping Member States and
other stakeholder groups
in the decision process and the deployment-enabling phase for eCall.
• Calls for Vehicle Makers, Telecom Industry and Equipment Manufactures and other related
Industries to prepare for the deployment according to the roadmap given in this report.
• Calls for the establishment of large scale field operational tests and assessments of eCall to be
carried out as soon as possible to provide additional data for the costs and benefits of eCall to be
used e.g. for deciding potential incentive schemes that could speed up the deployment.
• Calls for the establishment of a permanent group of emergency authorities and other relevant
stakeholders that each year should review the deployment status amongst the various stakeholders.
This group should be functional at least until 2015.
• DG eCall recommends that the private service providers currently operating a proprietary vehicle
emergency call alike systems are consulted for providing experiences when Member States discuss
how to deploy eCall.
• Calls for the European Commission, the Member States and other stakeholders to carry out adequate
awareness and education campaign to the citizens on eCall

Appendix list
Recommendations for the introduction of the pan-European eCall
Appendix 1 Total DG eCall membership list
Appendix 2 A Complete list of eCall meetings – 2005 onwards
Appendix 3 The eCall MoU
Appendix 4 Complete list of MoU signatures - Last update 15/03/2006
Appendix 5 Main conclusions from the three high-level meetings
Appendix 6 All Communications and Directives
Appendix 7 Draft Report on Road safety: Bringing eCall to Citizens by the European
Parliament, Committee on Transport and Tourism, Provisional 2005/2211(INI)
Rapporteur: Gary Titley
Appendix 8 The full PSAP requirements clarification paper
Appendix 9 Clarification Paper EG1- eCall Performance Criteria
Appendix 10 The full functional specifications of the In-Vehicle system from ACEA
Appendix 11 High level requirements for the in-vehicle system by DG eCall sub-working group
EG.2 (suppliers perspective)
Appendix 12 Options for eCall MSD signalling, GSME Position, 21 April 2006
Appendix 13 Certification sub-working group
Appendix 14 Implementation status E112 and eCall
Appendix 15 Issues on Privacy by Jan Malenstein, 8 April 2005
Appendix 16 Results from the different studies on business case
April 2006 Version 2.0

Recommendations for the introduction of
the pan-European eCall
Appendix 1
Total DG eCall membership list

eCall Driving Group - Participants
Company First Name - Name e-mail address
ABI (Motor Insurers Bureau) Justin Jacobs justin.jacobs@abi.org.uk
ACEA Ivan Hodac ih@acea.be
ACEA Mike Hollingsworth mh@acea.be
ACEA Wolfgang Reinhardt wr@acea.be
ADAC Bernhard Labudek bernhard.labudek@zentrale.adac.de
ADAC Peter Meyer peter.meyer@adac.de
ADAC Dietmar Flügel dietmar.fluegel@zentrale.adac.de
AGF Vincent Sussfeld vincent.sussfeld@agf.fr
AISCAT Maurizio Rotondo maurizio.rotondo@aiscat.it
Airbiquity Inc Kamyar Moinzadeh kmoinzadeh@airbiquity.com
Airbiquity Inc Rhys Robinson rrobinson@airbiquity.com
Airbiquity Inc Leon Hong lhong@airbiquity.com
Alcatel Charles de Montravel charles.de_montravel@alcatel.com
Alcatel François Courau francois.courau@alcatel.fr
Ambualce Service Association Andy Heward andy.heward@asa.uk.net
Arc Transistance Charles CAPELLEMAN charles.capelleman@arctransistance.com
ASECAP Kalistratos Dionelis asecap@skynet.be
ASFA - Autoroutes Trafic GIE Paul Maarek p.maarek@autoroutes-trafic.fr
ASFA Jacques Boussuge jacques.boussuge@autoroutes.fr
ASFA Jean Mesqui jean.mesqui@autoroutes.fr
Asociacion Española de la Carretera Aniceto Zaragoza azaragoza@aecarretera.com
Autoliv Martin Lilja martin.lilja@autoliv.com
Autoliv Lennart Strandberg lennart.strandberg@autoliv.com
Autoliv Rikard Larsson rikard.larsson@autoliv.com
AXA Thierry Langreney thierry.langreney@axa.com
Bast Fritz Bolte bolte@bast.de
BMW Joachim Scholten Joachim.Scholten@bmw.de
Bosch Bram Hansma Bram.Hansma@nl.bosch.com
Bosch Erich Bittner erich.bittner@de.bosch.com
Bosch Gunter Zimmermeyer gunter.zimmermeyer@de.bosch.com
Bosch Marcel Van Empel marcel.vanempel@nl.bosch.com
BT John Medland John.Medland@bt.com
BUNDESMINISTERIUM FUR WIRTSCHAFT Holger Butscheidt holger.butscheidt@regtp.de
Bureau de Normalisation Automobile Francis Martin francis.martin@bn-auto.com
CapGemini Finland OY Anne-Maria Hautala anne-maria.hautala@capgemini.com
CapGemini Finland OY Aki Siponen aki.siponen@capgemini.com
CEN - Comité Européen de Normalisation Jelte Dijkstra jelte.dijkstra@nen.nl

CEA - Comité Européen des Assurances Jean-Louis Marsaud marsaud@cea.assur.org
CEA - Comité Européen des Assurances Catherine Daviau daviau@paris.cea.assur.org
CEA - Comité Européen des Assurances Hakima Ben Azzouz benazzouz@brussels.cea.assur.org
City of Oulu - Finland Kari Nenonen kari.nenonen@ouka.fi
City of Oulu - Finland Katriina Puhakka katriina.puhakka@ouka.fi
Czech Telecom Richard Walitza richard.walitza@ct.cz
Daimler Chrysler AG Jürgen Wojatschek juergen.wojatschek@daimlerchrysler.com
Danish Road Safety Counsil René La Cour Sell rlcs@rfsf.dk
DfT - UK Martin Hill martin.hill@odpm.gsi.gov.uk
Direccion General para la Sociedad de la Informacion Måns Shapshak mans.shapshak@cfnavarra.es
Direcção Geral de Viação, Portugal Luiza Coelho lcoelho@dgv.pt
Directline (Car Insurance) Christopher Wainwright Christopher.Wainwright@Directline.com
DTI - Department of Trade and Industry David Barnes david@barnesdavid.com
European Emergency Number Association - EENA112 Olivier Paul-Morandini opm@eena.org
Efkon AG Andras Kovacs a.kovacs@efkon.com
Ellas SA/PSAP (Omnis-Online Ellas) Dimitris Cobopoulos jimcob@omnis-ellas.gr
Emergency response Centre, Ministry of Interior, Lithuania Arturas Kedavicius arturas.kedavicius@vrm.lt
EPFL-LAVOC Alexandre Torday alexandre.torday@epfl.ch
Ericsson Peter Callmer peter.callmer@ericsson.com
ERTICO Michael Nielsen m.nielsen@mail.ertico.com
ERTICO Rasmus Lindholm r.lindholm@mail.ertico.com
ETSC - European Transport Safety Council Frazer Goodwin policy@etsc.be
ETSI Adrian Zoicas adrian.zoicas@etsi.org
ETSI Jørgen Friis jorgen.friis@etsi.org
ETSI Igor Minaev igor.minaev@etsi.org
ETSI Ultan Mulligan ultan.mulligan@etsi.org
ETSI Gavin Craik gavin.craik@etsi.org
ETSI Chantal Rihet chantal.rihet@etsi.org
ETSI Michael Sharpe michael.sharpe@etsi.org
ETSI Bob Williams bw@2-csi.com
ETSI Cesar Gutierrez Miguelez Cesar.Gutierrez@etsi.org
EUGIN - European Institutes of Navigation Arnold-Kees van Rongen akvr@mobi-spot.nl
Federal Ministry of Transport, Building and Housing Gabriele Ernst ref-S02@bmvbw.bund.de
FEI Information Technology Graeme Smith Graeme.Smith@SEI-IT.CO.UK
FIA Adam Mc Carthy a.mccarthy@pop.kpn.be
FIAT Giorgio Audisio giorgio.audisio@fiat.com
FIAT Alessandro Coda alessandro.coda@fiat.com
FICORA Timo Leppinen timo.leppinen@ficora.fi
FIGIEFA/CLEDIPA Laurence Havaux Laurence.Havaux@Federauto.be

FIGIEFA/CLEDIPA Sylvia Gotzen sylvia.gotzen@federauto.be
Finnish Road Enterprise Tuomo Eloranta tuomo.eloranta@tieliikelaitos.fi
Finnish Road Enterprise Satu Keiski-Toni satu.keiski-toni@tieliikelaitos.fi
Finnish Road Enterprise Petri Ellmen petri.ellmen@tieliikelaitos.fi
Finnra - Finnish road Administration Aulis Nironen aulis.nironen@tiehallinto.fi
FOCWA Karel Bukholczer K.BUKHOLCZER@FOCWA.ORG
FOCWA Suleyman Bagislayici s.bagislayici@focwa.org
Ford Tony Harcombe-Smee tharcom1@ford.com
Ford John Archer jarcher8@ford.com
GDV (German Insurance Association) - Institute for Vehicle Safety Axel Malczyk a.malczyk@gdv.org
GDV (German Insurance Association) - Institute for Vehicle Safety Volker Meewes v.meewes@gdv.org
GDV (German Insurance Association) - Institute for Vehicle Safety Klaus Langwieder langwieder@t-online.de
GDV (German Insurance Association) - Institute for Vehicle Safety Johann Gwehenberger J.gwehenberger@gdv.org
Polish General Directorate for National Roads and Motorways Ziemowit Cyndrowski zcyndrowski@gddkia.gov.pl
Germany Ministry Roland Niggestich roland.niggestich@bmvbw.bund.de
Gplus Europe Dorothée D'Herde dorotheedherde@gpluseurope.com
Hellenic Institute of Transport George Giannopoulos ggian@certh.gr
Hill & Knowlton Philipp Bruchert Bruchert@hillandknowlton.com
IBPT Rudi Smet rudi.smet@bipt.be
IMA BENELUX Sonja Descheemaeker s.descheemaeker@imabenelux.com
IMA BENELUX Henri Van de Kraats h.vandekraats@imabenelux.com
Indagon Oy Mikko Weckström mikko.weckstrom@indagon.com
INRETS Annie Pauzie annie.pauzie@inrets.fr
ISMB Cesare Raviglione raviglione@ismb.it
ITO Guus Zijlstra guus.zijlstra@isc.politie.nl
ITS Czech Rpublic - Eltodo EG Pavel Pribyl PribylP@eltodo.cz
ITS Denmark Svend Tøfting svt@nja.dk
ITS Finland Antti Rainio antti.rainio@navinova.fi
ITS Hungary Agnes Lindenbach interut21@tvnetwork.hu
ITS Netherlands Paul Potters potters@connekt.nl
ITS Romania Dorin Dumitrescu dorin.dumitrescu@rdslink.ro
ITS Sweden Christer Larsson christer.karlsson@its-sweden.com
KLPD Jan Malenstein janmalenstein@planet.nl
KPN Fer Bonsel f.bonsel@kpn.com
KoKOM Egil Bovim Egil.Bovim@kokom.no
Maaf Pierre-Henri Schecter pierre-henri.schecter@maaf.fr
Ministère de l'Intérieur Didier Paris dparis@sdis28.fr
Ministry of Economy and Transport, Hungary Zita Egyhazy zita.egyhazy@gkm.hu
Ministry of Informatics and Communications, Hungary Zsuzsa Juhaszne Kovacs zsuzsa.juhaszne@ihm.gov.hu

Ministry of infrastructure, Secretariat of National Road Safety Krzysztof Jamrozik kjamrozik@mi.gov.pl
Ministry of the interior and Kingdom Relations - Netherlands Tjerk Terpstra tjerk.terpstra@minbzk.nl
Ministry of the interior and Kingdom Relations - Netherlands Aart Klijn aart.klijn@minbzk.nl
Ministry of the interior-Department for Rescue Services Mikko Jääskeläinen mikko.jaaskelainen@intermin.fi
Ministry of the interior / PSAP unit Janne Koivukoski janne.koivukoski@intermin.fi
Ministry of Transport and Communications/Traffic Safety Unit
Seppo Öörni seppo.oorni@mintc.fi
Ministry of Transport and Communications Ruta Mensonaite r.mensonaite@transp.lt
Ministry of Transport and Communications Anu Lamberg anu.lamberg@mintc.fi
Ministry of Transport and Communications, Finland Matti Roine matti.roine@mintc.fi
Ministry of Transport and Communications, Finland Perttu Puro perttu.puro@mintc.fi
Ministry of Transport and Communications, CZK Martin Pichl martin.pichl@mdcr.cz
MMA
Jacques Van Wittenberghe jacques.van-wittenberghe@groupe-mma.fr
Mobisoft Oy Heikki Karintaus heikki.karintaus@mobisoft.fi
Mondial Assistance Jacques Amselem jacques.amselem@mondial-assistance-group.com
Motorola GmbH Alfred Krappel alfred.krappel@motorola.com
Motorola SAS Ian Doig ian.doig@motorola.com
Motorola Ltd Steven Vardy steven.vardy@motorola.com
Motorola Ltd Andrew Howell andrew.howell@motorola.com
Motorola GmbH Reinhard Wählen reinhard.waehlen@motorola.com
National Safety Council, Ireland Martin Heffernan MHeffernan@nsc.ie
Navteq Philippe Sentein philippe.sentein@navteq.com
Navteq Chris Peters chris.peters@navteq.com
Navteq Yiannis Moissidis yiannis.moissidis@navteq.com
Norwich Union Robert Ledger Ledgerr@norwich-union.co.uk
Oftel David Heath david.heath@ofcom.org.uk
Orange Jacques Garcin jacques.garcin@orangefrance.com
Orange Nick Sampson nick.sampson@orange.co.uk
Orange Sonia Hilton sonia.hilton@orange.co.uk
Orange Michel Fond michel.fond@orangefrance.com
Romanian Company for Motorways and National Roads Bogdan Zanea sigcirc@and.ro
National Office for Research and Technology, Hungary Sándor Bottka sandor.bottka@ist.hu
Peiker Acustic Lutz P. Richter lutz.richter@peiker.de
PSA Stephan Cayet stephan.cayet@MPSA.com
PSA Bernard Cousyn bernard.cousyn@mpsa.com
QUALCOMM EUROPE S.A.R.L. Niels Andersen npa@qualcomm.com
RACC Pere Sauret pere.sauret@racc.es
RACC Josep Mateu josep.mateu@racc.es
RACC Nuria Alberti nuria.alberti@racc.es
RACC Xavier Castells xavier.castells@racc.es

RBS Insurance - Direct Line Group Ltd Cara Hurlock cara.hurlock@directline.com
Renault Yann Bouler yann.bouler@renault.com
Research in Motion Ltd Ian Harris iharris@rim.com
SAGEM SA Thomas Dupoizat thomas.dupoizat@sagem.com
SAGEM SA Thierry Buffenoir thierry.buffenoir@sagem.com
SAGEM SA Emilie Berger emilie.berger@sagem.com
SAGEM SA Céline Bauchet celine.bauchet@sagem.com
SEAT Monica Sanz monica.sanz@seat.es
Siemens AG Andreas Kohn andreaskohn@siemens.com
Siemens VDO Jean-Yves Bronner Jean-yves.Bronner@at.siemens.fr
Siemens VDO
Ralf-Roland Schmidt-Cotta ralf-roland.schmidt-Cotta@siemens.com
Siemens VDO Theo Kamalski Theo.Kamalski@Siemens.com
Sony Ericson Darren Stratton darren.stratton@sonyericsson.com
Sony Ericson Stefan Gudmundsson Stefan.gudmundsson@sonyericsson.com
SRA Eva Boethius eva.boethius@vv.se
SOS Alarm - Sweden Anders Holmsten anders.holmsten@sosalarm.se
Swiss Federal Road Authority Roger Siegrist roger.siegrist@astra.admin.ch
Teknisen Kaupan Liitto Klaus Katara klaus.katara@tkl.fi
TeleAtlas Ad Bastiaansen ad.bastiaansen@teleatlas.com
TeleAtlas Linda Zhu linda.zhu@teleatlas.com
Telecom Italia Marco Annoni marco.annoni@telecomitalia.it
Telefonica Moviles Spain Alejandra Diaz diaz_a4@tsm.es
Telefonica Moviles Spain Francisco Puertas Ramiro puertas_f@tsm.es
Telematix Services AS Tomas Tvrzsky tvrzsky@telematix.cz
Telmacon Gerhard Wolfien g.wolfien@telmacon.com
Thales Steve Clark steve.clark@thalestelematics.com
Thales Louise Simpson Louise.Simpson@thalestelematics.com
ThomasMiller Francis Frost francis.frost@thomasmiller.com
TISPOL (European Traffic Police Network) Ad Hellemons info@tispol.org
T-Mobile Martin Büchter martin.buechter@t-mobile.de
T-Mobile Dietmar Schmitz dietmar.schmitz@t-mobile.net
TOURING Thierry Delire thierry.delire@touring.be
Toyota Hiroshi Morita hiroshi.morita@toyota-europe.com
Toyota Auto Finland Jouko Ryyänen jouko.ryynanen@toyota.fi
Toyota Kenji Nishikawa Kenji.Nishikawa@toyota-europe.com
True Position Inc Rhys Robinson rrobinson@TruePosition.com
T-Trac AB/ SIS TK 255 Johan Björkman johan.bjorkman@t-trac.se
TTS Italia Francesco Mazzone f.mazzone@aci.it
UNINFO/Autostrade per l'Italia SpA Natalino Curci n.curci@polidream.it

VDA Bernhard Dicke dicke@vda.de
VDA Michael Niedenthal niedenthal@vda.de
ViaDonau Alexander Frötscher froetscher@via-donau.org
Vodafone Claire Alexandre claire.alexandre@vodafone.com
Vodafone Ulrich Dietz ulrich.dietz@vodafone.com
Vodafone Stefan Vieweg stefan.vieweg@vodafone.com
Vodafone Passo Kevin Oord kevin.oord@vodafone.com
Volkswagen AG Thomas Buttersack thomas.buttersack@volkswagen.de
Volkswagen AG Sabine Spell sabine.spell@volkswagen.de
Volvo Mats Örblom mats.orblom@volvo.com
Volvo Car Corporation Joost van den Bosch jvande32@volvocars.com
Volvo Car Corporation Peder Fast pfast1@volvocars.com
Volvo Car Corporation Henrik Forsgren hforsgre@volvocars.com
Volvo Car Corporation Charlotta Ostberg costber1@volvocars.com
VTT Building and Transport Risto Kulmala risto.kulmala@vtt.fi
EC André Vits andre.vits@cec.eu.int
EC Emilio Davila Gonzalez Emilio.Davila-Gonzalez@cec.eu.int
EC Fabrizio Minarini fabrizio.minarini@cec.eu.int
EC Ari Latvala ari.latvala@cec.eu.int
EC Juhani Jaaskelainen juhani.jaaskelainen@cec.eu.int
EC Keith Keen Keith.Keen@cec.eu.int
EC Rosalie Zobel rosalie.zobel@cec.eu.int
EC Leo Koolen leo.koolen@cec.eu.int
Wavecom Philippe Lanney philippe.lanney@wavecom.com
Wavecom Olivier Beaujard olivier.beaujard@wavecom.com
Wireless Car Gerger Landen greger.landen@wirelesscar.com
Wireless Car Mattias Leijon mattias.leijon@wirelesscar.com
Wireless Car Magnus Johansson magnus.johansson@wirelesscar.com
Wireless Car Harald Landt harald.landt@wirelesscar.com
WSP LT Consultants Ltd Reetta Jokinen reetta.jokinen@wspgroup.fi
Ygomi LLC - LSP Concept Development Richard Weinstock weinstock@ygomi.com
Ygomi LLC - LSP Concept Development David Horncastle horncastle@ygomi.com
7 Layers AG Dalia Rosagaray Dalia.Rosagaray@7layers.de

Recommendations for the introduction of
the pan-European eCall
Appendix 2
A Complete list of eCall meetings –
2005 onwards

1
DG eCall meetings
Title Date and Place Main Conclusions
eCall Member State meeting 26 January 05 –
Amsterdam
High Level meeting with 3 February 05 -
Industry
Brussels
ERTICO Industry Group 15 February 05 -
Brussels
eCall Member State meeting 28 February 05 -
Rome
Meeting with Swedish 15 March 05-
Industry
Gothenburg
eCall Member State meeting 16 March 05 -
Madrid
eCall Driving Group 14 April 05 -
Helsinki
eCall seminar 15 April 05 -
Helsinki
eCall standardisation 3-4 May 05 –
meeting
Sofia Antipolis
eSafety Seminar 11 May 05 -
Barcelona
eCall Insurers meeting 25 May 05 -
Brussels
eCall standardisation 13 June 05 –
Sofia Antipolis
eCall Telco meeting 22 June 05 -
Brussels
eCall Insurers meeting 6 July 05 –
Brussels
eCall Driving Group 7 July 05 –
Brussels
eCall Member State meeting 8 July 05 –
Lisbon
eCall Member State meeting 12 July 05 -
Amsterdam
eCall standardisation 29 July 05 –
Brussels
eCall steering group 9 September 05
meeting
Brussels
eCall telco meeting 15 September
05 Brussels
eCall Member State meeting 15-16
September 05
Stockholm
eCall meeting vehicle 22 September
manufactures
05 Brussels
eCall steering group 14 October 05 -
Brussels
Meeting with Dutch companies about
deployment of eCall
Presentation of eCall
Presentation of eCall and eSafety
Presentation of eCall and distribution
of material to various companies
Presentation of eCall and eSafety
Presentation of eCall to Spanish
stakeholders
Strategies for eCall implementation.
Discussion of eCall with the main
stakeholders
ETSI standardisation meeting on the
transport layer of the MSD
Presentation of eSafety Forum and
eCall
Meeting with the Insurers about the
business plan.
ETSI meeting on standardisation of
eCall
Meeting with the telecoms about the
deployment of eCall
Meeting I with the Insurers about the
business plan for eCall
Strategies for eCall implementation and
formation of a working steering group.
Meeting with the Authorities in
Portugal about the deployment of eCall
Meeting with Dutch stakeholders on
eCall deployment
Management meeting with ETSI on
eCall standardisation.
Formation of sub-working groups and
status of work
Meeting with telcos about the
deployment of eCall/ETSI
Meeting with Swedish authorities about
deployment of eCall
Meeting in ACEA about deployment of
eCall
Status of sub-working groups and
planning of high level meeting

2
DG eCall meetings
High Level meeting 18 October 05 –
Brussels
Presentation of eCall
eCall standardisation 15-16
Meeting at ETSI about standardisation
meeting
November 05 –
Sofia Antipolis
of transport layer.
eCall Driving Group 17 November
05 - Brussels
Strategies for eCall implementation.
eCall Member State meeting 30 November Meeting with Dutch stakeholders on
05 Amstelfoort eCall deployment
Expert meeting eCall 2 December 05
– Switzerland
Member state expert meeting on eCall
eCall standardisation 23 January 05 – Meeting at ETSI about standardisation
meeting
Amsterdam of transport layer.
PSAP expert meeting 16 March 06 – Spanish positions on eCall and MSD
Madrid and PSAP requirements
Expert meeting eCall 23 March 06 – Focus on eCall deployment in new EU
Budapest Member States
Final DG eCall meeting 24/25 April 06 Recommendations for the introduction
Brussels of the pan-European eCall

Recommendations for the introduction of
the pan-European eCall
Appendix 3
The eCall MoU

Table of Contents
eSafety Forum
eCall Driving Group
Memorandum of Understanding
for
Realisation of Interoperable
In-Vehicle eCall
Memorandum of Understanding
Signatory pages
Annex A - Relevant European Resolutions, Conclusions and Guidelines
Annex B - The in-vehicle eCall minimum set of data
in-vehicle eCall MoU – May 28, 2004 Page 1 of 7

European MoU for Realisation of Interoperable in-Vehicle eCall
European Memorandum of Understanding
for Realisation of Interoperable In-Vehicle eCall
The purpose of this European Memorandum of Understanding (MoU) is to secure the realisation
of an interoperable in-vehicle emergency call service (eCall) supplied, introduced and operated
across Europe. This MoU does not represent a legally binding agreement; rather, it is an
expression of the individual and collective commitment of the signatories to work in partnership in
order to realise a shared objective to the benefit of everyone.
1. Preamble
1.1 Rationale
The introduction and use of in-vehicle eCall for deployment of emergency assistance will save
lives and reduce social burden by improving the notification of road accidents and speeding up
emergency service response. There is an urgent need for a European solution in order to
contribute to a reduction of the 39,200 1 people killed, 3.3 million casualties and annual costs in
relation to traffic accidents of more than 180 billion Euro. This is why the European Commissionled
eSafety Forum adopted eCall as the highest priority amongst the eSafety measures
contained in the recent eSafety Communication 2 .
1.2 Definition of In-vehicle eCall
The in-vehicle eCall is an emergency call generated either manually by vehicle occupants or
automatically via activation of in-vehicle sensors. When activated, the in-vehicle eCall system will
establish a voice connection directly with the relevant PSAP (Public Safety Answering Point), this
being either a public or a private eCall centre operating under the regulation and/or authorisation
of a public body. At the same time, a minimum set of incident data (MDS) 3 will be sent to the
eCall operator receiving the voice call.
1.3 Framework
This MoU creates a framework for the introduction of in-vehicle emergency call at all levels in the
emergency call chain – including the public sector, the private sector and/or through publicprivate
partnerships. The aim of this MoU is to encourage co-operation between the vehicle
makers, Telecom Operators, the EC and the Member States (in particular the emergency
agencies, the public PSAPs and the private PSAPs operating under the regulation of a public
body) together with other relevant parties such as the insurance industry, automobile clubs and
other relevant industrial partners.
1 ETSC report on Transport Safety Performance in the EU – A statistical overview 2003 (2001 statistics)
2 COM(2003) 542 final: COMMUNICATION FROM THE COMMISSION TO THE COUNCIL AND THE EUROPEAN
PARLIAMENT “Information and Communications Technologies for Safe and Intelligent Vehicles”
3 See Annex B
in-vehicle eCall MoU – May 28, 2004 Page 2 of 7

2. Involved Parties
European MoU for Realisation of Interoperable in-Vehicle eCall
Moving forward with implementation of in-vehicle eCall requires parallel commitment and joint
effort to work on common, co-ordinated implementation and supporting business plans from all
Parties constituting the basic eCall service and value chain.
Such co-ordinated roll-out and business plans need to include optimised technical solutions,
quality standards, co-ordinated target dates when emergency calls from in-vehicle systems can
be handled by the infrastructure, the incremental investments needed to develop, produce and
operate such systems and infrastructure adaptations, a financial model how investments and
service costs could be financed and by whom, the possibility of fiscal and financial incentives, the
benefits and savings by stakeholder group, etc.
The relevant stakeholder groups with the highest impact on the realisation of a European solution
can be divided into two major groups: The Parties directly forming the eCall service chain (2.1 –
2.4) and the other Parties (2.5 – 2.8), which are essential contributors and accelerators of the
process. Both groups need to work together to achieve the overall objectives and should be
represented in the European Coordination Platform.
2.1 Member States
Member States signing this MoU and in particular those authorities in charge of emergency call
services and related finance - e.g. civil protection authorities, Ministry of Interior and Ministry of
Finance - agree to contribute to the development and agreement of country specific
implementation plans conforming to the principles for pan-European eCall as defined in 1.2 and
Annex B. For Member States having one or more Service Providers acting as PSAPs for the 112
services, this MoU requires a special handling. The Member State should, after signing this MoU,
ensure that the Service Providers who are operating as PSAPs under their regulation gets a
commission to handle in-vehicle eCall services. The agreement between the Member State and
the Service Provider should include specification, financing and time plan of the in-vehicle eCall
service implementation and operations.
2.3 Telecom operators
Telecom Operators signing this MoU agree to contribute to the development and agreement of
feasible implementation and business plans conforming to the principles for pan-European eCall
as defined in 1.2 and Annex B.
2.4 Vehicle Manufacturers
Vehicle Manufacturers signing this MoU agree to contribute to the development and agreement
of feasible implementation and business plans conforming to the principles for pan-European
eCall as defined in 1.2 and Annex B.
2.4 Service Providers operating as PSAPs under the regulation of a public body
Private Service Providers who are operating as PSAPs under the regulation of a public body
signing this MoU agree to contribute to the development and agreement of implementation and
business plans conforming to the principles for pan-European eCall as defined in Para 1.2 and
Annex B.
in-vehicle eCall MoU – May 28, 2004 Page 3 of 7

European MoU for Realisation of Interoperable in-Vehicle eCall
In addition to the essential Parties constituting the eCall service chain, other players are an
important part of the value chain and have an important role in supporting and accelerating
market take up e.g. through specific support in the business and implementation planning phase
and/or contributing to the overall business and outreach plan. These players have been identified
as follows:
3. Act
2.5 Insurance companies
2.6 Automobile clubs, service providers and other end user focused entities
2.7 European Commission DG Information Society, DG Transport, DG Environment
2.8 Related Industrial partners (equipment manufactures, location technology
providers, repair industry etc.)
The Parties signing this MoU will actively contribute to the development and agreement of
feasible implementation and business plans conforming to the principles for pan-European eCall
as defined in 1.2 and Annex B.
The Parties signing this MoU will – within the first 12 months following the signature of this MoU,
which is targeted to take place within the first half of 2004 - define an overall European work plan
and present their recommendation for decision.
To achieve the objectives each party signing the MoU will delegate minimum one expert as a
member to the Driving Group on eCall. The representative should be empowered to take
necessary decisions.
4. Process
4.1 European Co-ordination
The Parties signing this MoU will interact through a European Co-ordination Platform to coordinate
their activities by bringing together all relevant stakeholders. Provided sufficient funds
can be made available, the co-ordination platform will include studies on the economics
underlying the introduction and the drafting of a road map at European level.
The European Commission is the appropriate body to determine the platform to be used for this
European Co-ordination. Currently the Driving Group on eCall within the eSafety Forum is the
appropriate platform, but the co-ordination may take another form in subsequent years to support
implementers and monitor progress of implementation across Europe. However, such coordination
should continue to be under the auspices of the eSafety Forum.
4.2 Status of the Memorandum of Understanding
This MoU summarises the current intentions of the different Parties signing this MoU. It will form
the basis for action by each of the Parties according to their respective roles. However, nothing
in this MoU legally obliges any Party to any other Party. Also, this MoU does not affect the rights
(including intellectual property rights) of any Party to material or services supplied by them as part
of the in-vehicle eCall chain. This MoU recognises that all Parties carry their own risks and costs
in providing, carrying and handling the in-vehicle eCall initiative.
in-vehicle eCall MoU – May 28, 2004 Page 4 of 7

European MoU for Realisation of Interoperable in-Vehicle eCall
4.3 Review of this MoU
For this MoU to provide an effective framework for co-operation active participation of all sectors
concerned is required. Progress on implementation and business planning by all Parties
concerned will be reviewed when appropriate. However, first review should take place not later
than after 12 months following the signature of the MoU. When appropriate the Parties, will
consider the need for improvements in their co-operation and make and introduce suitable
proposals for modification or termination to this MoU.
in-vehicle eCall MoU – May 28, 2004 Page 5 of 7

European MoU for Realisation of Interoperable in-Vehicle eCall
European Memorandum of Understanding
for in-vehicle e-call
SIGNATURE PAGES
Representative from
(Please tick) Member State Telecom
Operator
Name
Status
Organisation
Contact Address
Signature
Date
Insurance
Company/
Organisation
Other
Automobile
Club
Vehicle
manufacturer
Service
Provider
Service
Provider
operating as
PSAP under
the regulation
of a public
body
Related
Industrial
Party
in-vehicle eCall MoU – May 28, 2004 Page 6 of 7

European MoU for Realisation of Interoperable in-Vehicle eCall
Annex A - Relevant European Resolutions, Conclusions and Decisions
C(2003) 2657 final
COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION of 25/07/2003 on the processing of caller location
information in electronic communication networks for the purpose of location-enhanced
emergency call services
COM(2003) 542 final:
COMMUNICATION FROM THE COMMISSION TO THE COUNCIL AND THE EUROPEAN
PARLIAMENT “Information and Communications Technologies for Safe and Intelligent Vehicles”
Universal Service Directive
(http://europa.eu.int/eur-lex/en/archive/2002/l_10820020424en.html)
Final CGALIES report
(http://europa.eu.int/comm/environment/civil/index.htm)
ETSC report
Transport Safety Performance in the EU – A statistical overview 2003 (2001 statistics)
ISBN: 90-76024-154
Annex B - The in-vehicle e-call minimum data set
Minimum Data Set
The parties agree to the following minimum data set that have to be sent directly from the vehicle
to the public PSAPs or the private service providers operating as PSAPs under the regulation of a
public body, in case of a manual or automatic emergency call initiated from the in-vehicle system.
Mandatory to be included:
Time stamp
Precise Location
Vehicle identification
Service Provider Identifier
E-call qualifier (as a minimum a indication stating if the eCall has been manually or
automatically initiated)
in-vehicle eCall MoU – May 28, 2004 Page 7 of 7

Recommendations for the introduction of
the pan-European eCall
Appendix 4
Complete list of MoU signatures -
Last update 15/03/2006

Page 1 of 2
Organisation Address Name Position/Title
1 ACEA
Date of
signature
Rue du Noyer 211, BE-1000
Brussels Mr Ivan HODAC Secretary General 27/08/2004
ACEA on behalf of:
BMW GROUP
DAF TRUCKS NV
DAIMLERCHRYSLER AG
FIAT S.p.A
FORD OF EUROPE GmbH
GENERAL MOTORS EUROPE
AG
MAN NUTZFAHRZEUGE AG
PORSCHE AG
PSA PEUGEOT CITROËN
RENAULT SA
SCANIA AB
VOLKSWAGEN AG
VOLVO AB 27/08/2004
2 ADAC e.V.
Am Westpark 8, DE-81373
Munich (contact person
Bernhard Labudek)
945 Hilderbrand Lane, NE,
Suite 240, Bainbridge Island,
Mr Peter MEYER President 30/11/2004
3 Airbiquity Inc.
WA 98110 USA Mr Kamyar MOINZADEH President & CEO 18/10/2005
4 Allianz AG
5 ARC Transistance S.A,
6 Autoliv AB
Koeniginstrasse 28, DE-80802
München Mr Jacques AMSELEM
Mondial Group Development
Manager 27/06/2005
Av. des Pléiades, BE-1200
Brussels Mr Andrew JOHNSON Chief Executive 06/10/2004
Box 70 381, SE-107 24
Stockholm Mr Lars WESTERBERG CEO 02/02/2006
7 BOSCH 27/08/2004
8 CapGemini Finland OY
9 City of Oulu Finland
Niittymäentie 9, FIN-02200
Espoo Ms Anne-Maria HAUTALA Chief Financial Officer 20/09/2004
PO Box 1, FIN-90015 Oulun
Kapunki Mr Kari NENONEN Mayor 21/09/2004
10 ERTICO - ITS
European Emergency
Av Louise 326, BE-1050
Brussels Mr Olivier MOSSE Chief Executive Officer 27/08/2004
Number Association - EENA Chaussée de Saint-Job, BE-
11 112
1180 Brussels Mr Olivier PAUL-MORANDINI Founder 31/08/2004
12 Finnish Road Administration
13
Hellenic Institute of
Transport
PO Box 33, FIN-00521
Helsinki Mr Aulis NIRONEN Director 22/09/2004
6th Km Thessaloniki-Thermi
Rd, GR-57001 Thessaloniki Mr George GIANNOPOULOS Director 30/08/2004
14 Indagon OY
European Commission,
Information Society
Neijamiestentie 5A, FIN-00400
Helsinki Mr Nikko WECKSTRÖM Vice President/CTO 21/06/2004
15 Directorate-General - DG BU24 3/43, BE-1049 Brussels Mr Fabio COLASANTI Director-General 27/08/2004
16 ITS - Sweden
17
18
Stationsgatan 22, SE-784 33
BORLÄNGE Mr Christer KARLSSON CEO 19/05/2005
KLPD - The Netherlands' PO Box 100, NL-3970 AC
Director of Police, Police
National Police Organisation
KoKom - National Centre of
Driebergen Mr Pim MILTENBURG Commissionar 30/09/2004
Emergency Communication Haukelandsbakken 9, NOin
Health
5005 Bergen Mr Egil BOVIM Director 28/04/2005
19 LSP Hungary
20
21
22
23
Ministry of Communications
and Works, Cyprus
Debrecen Erzsébet u. 48
Hungary Dr Graeme P SMITH Managing Director 23/11/2004
28 Achaeon Street, CY-1424
Nicosia Mr Harris THRASSOU Minister 08/12/2005
Ministry of Economy and
Transport, Slovenia Kotnikova 5, SI-1000 Ljubljana Mr Matjaž JANŠA Director General 18/10/2005
Ministry of Innovation and
Technologies, Italy
Ministry of Interior -
Lithuanian Emergency
Response Centre
e Call Memorandum of Understanding
Status of signatures
Via Isonzo, 21b, IT - 00198
Roma Mr Settimio VINTI Director 18/10/2005
Svitrigailos str. 18, LT-03223
Vilnius Mr Arturas KEDAVICIUS Director 18/10/2005
10/03/2006 15:37

24
25
Page 2 of 2
e Call Memorandum of Understanding
Status of signatures
Organisation Address Name Position/Title
Ministry of Transport and
Communications Finland
Ministry of Transport and
Communications Greece
26 Mobisoft OY
27 Mondial Assistance Group
28 Motorola
29 Navteq B.V.
30 Oktopus S.A/N.V
31
32
33
Omnis-Online Ellas SA
TIC/PSAP
Peiker acustic GmbH & Co.
KG
RACC - Reial Automòbil de
Catalunya
34 Sagem Communication
35
Siemens VDO Automotive
AG
36 Siemens Wireless Modules
37
38
Date of
signature
PO Box 31, FIN-00023
Government Finland Mr Harri KAVÉN Director-General 22/09/2004
2, Anastasseos Street
GR-10191 Cholargos, Attiki Mr Anastasios NERANTZIS Deputy Minister 18/10/2005
Hatanpäävaltatie 26, FIN-
33100 Tampere Mr Heikki KARINTAUS Managing Director 23/09/2004
37, rue Taitbout, FR-75009
Paris
Mr Alain DEMISSY /
Ms Ida LUKA-LOGNONE
21440 West Lake, Cook Road,
Deer Park, Illinois US Mr Marios ZENIOS
President / Member of the
Executive Committee 27/06/2005
Senior Vice President &
General Manager 11/02/2005
De Run 1115, NL-5503 LB
Veldhoven Mr Chris PETERS VP Finance Europe 17/09/2004
Bronstraat 15, BE-1060
Brussel
Mr Michel VERSTRAELEN /
Mr Pieter DEBERSAQUES
General Manager /
Commercial Manager 02/03/2006
72-74 Salaminos, 17675
Athens Mr Dimitris COBOPOULOS Managing Director 02/12/2004
Max-Planck-Strasse 32, DE-
61381 Friedrichsdorf
Mr Frank-Horst SCHANK, Mr
Lutz P. RICHTER
General Manager, Head of
Product Strategy 24/03/2005
Av. Diagonal 687, ES-08028
Barcelona Mr Josep MATEU NEGRE Managing Director 14/02/2005
Le Ponant de Paris, 27, rue
Leblanc, FR-75512 Paris Cedex Mr Thierry BUFFENOIR Chief Executive Officer
Executive Vice President,
28/05/2005
Siemensstrasse 12, DE-93055
Strategy, Marketing and
Regensburg Dr W.S. STEGER
Advanced Technologies 08/09/2005
Haidenauplatz 1, DE-81667
Munchen Mr José COSTA SILVA CEO 10/05/2005
Swedish Road
Administration SE-78187 Borlänge Mr Ingemar SKOGÖ Director General 20/06/2005
Swiss Federal Roads
Authority
Worblentalstrasse 68, Ittigen,
CH-3003 Bern Mr Rudolf DIETERLE Director 22/11/2004
39 T-Trac Scandinavia AB Box 5299, SE-40225 Göteborg Mr Johan BJÖRKMAN Vice-President 04/05/2005
40 TeleAtlas NV Montstraat 132, BE-9000 Gent Mr Ad BASTIAANSEN SR VP Business Development 02/09/2004
41 Telit Communications SpA
42
TISPOL, The European
Traffic Police Network
43 Thomas Miller & Co Ltd
Via Stazione di Prosecco 51B,
Managing Director Data
IT-34010 Sgonico (TS) Mr Dominikus HIERL Roadmaps
President of the Tispol
17/08/2005
PO Box 201, Hoddesdon, UK-
Organisation, Police
EN11 8WX
International House, 26
Creedchurch Lane, UK-EL3A
Mr Ad HELLEMONS Commissionar 30/09/2004
5BA London Mr B. M. KESTERSON Director 04/07/2005
44 VTT Building and Transport PO Box 1800 FIN-02044 VTT Mr Juho SAARIMAA Executive Director 20/09/2004
45 Wavecom
46 WirelessCar
3, esplanade du Foncet, FR-
92130 Issy les Moulinéaux Mr Olivier BEAUJARD VP Marketing 06/04/2005
Kajskjul 107, SE-41707
Göteborg Mr Torbjörn SUNDSTRÖM Director Marketing & Sales 14/09/2004
10/03/2006 15:37

Recommendations for the introduction of
the pan-European eCall
Appendix 5
Main conclusions from the three
high-level meetings

eSafety High-Level Meeting with Public Authorities, Brussels, 27 September
2004
Introduction
The eSafety Forum organised a High-Level Meeting with the Public Authorities of the
Member States on 27 September 2004. The meeting was attended by over 80 persons
representing 18 Member States, one Associated State, industry associations, the eSafety
Forum Working Groups and the European Commission. The goal of the meeting was to
further integrate the Member States into the eSafety initiative and to discuss and seek
support for continuing the work of the eSafety Forum and its Working Groups. In
particular, the meeting aimed to discuss actions and formulate the way forward for three
priority topics; eCall, RTTI and HMI, on the basis of the detailed recommendations
proposed by the Working Groups.
Taking reference to the general eSafety Summary Report and the recommendations for
the Member States’s actions (See Tables in following pages), the Member States agreed
the following conclusions:
General Conclusions
Role of the Member States
In many Member States eSafety was already recognised as a national priority and other
Member States had already initiated national activities in this domain as a part of the their
general road safety strategy or a more specific ITS Strategy. The Commission called to
the Member States to support eSafety activities including the publication of the first
eSafety Communication in 2003 and the establishment of the eSafety Forum. The
Commission sought the involvement of all stakeholders in the eSafety initiative and this
also went for all levels of public authorities. Member States were essential not only to
manage and increase national efforts in eSafety but also to lend their expertise to the
eSafety Forum and its Working Groups.
Member states were asked to enhance eSafety action plans with their input on
intermediate goals and clear milestones. The implementation of the recommendations
proposed by the eSafety Forum requires co-ordination between different ministries,
which can sometimes prove to be a challenging and time-consuming task. Member States
were empowered to organising expert meetings for the three priority areas: eCall, RTTI
and HMI, with a view to speeding up their implementation. Their contribution towards
work on Accident Causation Analysis, Road Maps and Public Outreach Working Groups
was indispensable. Finally, the Commission asked Member States for support on its
second Communication on eSafety, which reports the progress, made and proposes
further actions.
The In-Vehicle Emergency Call (eCall)

Support from the Member States was required in making eCall a priority item for eSafety.
Their assistance was necessary in creating the general architecture for the implementation
of eCall, based on the location-enhanced E112 pan-European emergency number and
the Minimum Data Set, which had been proposed by the eCall Driving Group.
Given that emergency services are operated at a regional and/or local level in many
Member States, their coordination support was necessary to ensure smoother
implementation of the actions.
The Commission was asked to conduct an analysis of the socio-economic benefits of
eCall and especially to produce reliable cost figures. In addition an expert meeting on
eCall was required.
In the Tour de Table, one Member State (Finland) announced it had already signed the
MoU, was advancing with implementation and planned to start the service in the
beginning of 2005. The Netherlands, Germany, Sweden, France, Spain, Belgium, Czech
Republic, U.K, Hungary and Norway all gave their support to the MoU, and stated that
they would sign as soon as their internal processes were completed.

Recommended Actions for the Member States
In-vehicle Emergency Call (eCall)
With the aim of offering to all road users a harmonised, pan-European, interoperable eCall
service, the Member States should provide the necessary infrastructure to start the pan-
European eCall service from 2006 onwards. To do so the Member States should:
1. immediately sign the eCall Memorandum of Understanding at an appropriate level,
and commit to the creation of a concrete implementation plan for eCall as soon as
possible
2. send representatives to and support the work of the Public Safety Officers
Communication Forum and urge it, as a priority, to prepare for implementing E-112
and eCall
3. set up, as appropriate, national platforms for the implementation of E112 and eCall,
urge participation from relevant ministries (e.g. transport, telecommunications and
interior) and especially from the authorities responsible for the emergency services,
as well as private industry and service providers
4. use the appropriate European platforms, such as the eSafety Forum and the
ERTICO Public Authorities Platform to review progress in eSafety and to agree on
national eCall implementation strategies and plans, harmonised at a European level
5. undertake to assure, by the end of 2006, that adequate infrastructure will exist in the
Public Service Answering Points (PSAPs) for the processing of eCalls originating
from vehicles, and increase their efforts to the use of location and other relevant
information into the whole emergency service chain
6. support in ETSI the standardisation of interfaces between the telecommunications
networks and the PSAPs, and of the data transfer protocols for simultaneous voicedata
link between the vehicle and the PSAP
7. undertake the necessary training of emergency service personnel, and organise public
awareness campaigns to increase the visibility of E112 and eCall
8. develop, together with the other stakeholders, a model of how to provide financial
incentives to the users of eCall to accelerate the take up
9. report by the end of 2004 on the status of their E112 implementation and by the
end of 2005 on the status of the readiness of their PSAPs to process eCalls

Real-Time Traffic And Travel Information (RTTI)
The support of Member States was required in making RTTI a priority item. The
ambitious aim of the RTTI Working Group was that 80% of journeys in Europe should
be covered by RTTI services. In order to achieve this goal, Member States needed to
contribute to RDS and TMC services in their networks and help improve data
availability. They also needed to assist the Working Group with the development of new
technologies. The Commission was asked to organise an expert meeting on this topic. In
the Tour de Table, some Member States stated there were problems in establishing and
maintaining the RDS/TMC service, due to the lack of commercial interest.
Recommended Actions for the Member States
Real-Time Traffic and Travel Information (RTTI)
With the aim of having by 2010, 80% of journeys throughout Europe served with
adequate, standardized RTTI services, using initially RDS/TMC, the Member States
should – if they have not already
1. agree by the end of 2005 at the national level on a strategy and time schedule for
the implementation of RTTI services, starting with RDS/TMC, covering as
much as possible both inter-urban and urban areas
2. support the TMC-Forum to continuously promote the safety-related service
features of TMC, building on the already existing, standardised European format
for the data, and European messaging and transmission standards
3. take steps to ensure roaming and interoperability across the RTTI-services
4. require their authorities to make available existing public data for the provision of
RTTI-services and to establish additional collection of real-time traffic
information when necessary
5. agree to
• create national RTTI strategies aligned with the Commission
Recommendation on TTI services
• use these strategies to create agreement between the public and private
service providers on the extent of the public (free of charge) services and
the conditions for commercial services
• establish public-private partnerships wherever these will support the
public or private services
6. ensure the correct implementation of the standard by service providers
7. publish, following the guidance of the Commission RTTI recommendation, clear
guidelines for the private sector, regarding the conditions for establishing private
data collection networks for commercial purposes
8. require broadcasters, especially those operating under public licence, to carry the
RDS/TMC traffic information for public or private providers so that for a
minimum of 80% of journeys the driver has access to a relevant service
9. require authorities to ensure through the appropriate standardisation and
regulation bodies that frequency spectrum and broadcast capacity will be made
5

available for more advanced digital broadcast services such as DAB, DRM,
DVB-T and eventually satellite DAB
10. support the development of more advanced services, made possible by 3G
Mobile Communications, DAB and DVB-T and satellite broadcasting, wireless
LANs and others
Human-Machine Interaction (HMI)
With HMI as the third priority item, Member States were needed to help solve the issue
of nomadic systems, as well as address the issue of introducing ADAS in vehicles. Their
assistance would also be required to implement and monitor the Recommendations
made by the HMI Working Group. Their support was called for by the Commission’s
proposal to produce a new version of the European Statement of Principles in early
2005. The Commission was asked to organise another expert meeting, this time on HMI.
In the Tour de Table, many Member States (including Finland, Spain, Belgium, and
Austria) referred to existing legislation prohibiting the use of Mobile Phones while
driving.
Recommended Actions for the Member States
Human-Machine Interaction (HMI)
.
Recommendations in terms of Communication
Member States should:
1. Actively ensure ESoP is effectively disseminated, known and used by designers,
manufacturers, installers and fleet managers1
2. Provide general information to drivers on the safe use of in-vehicle information
and communication systems e.g. by means of safety campaigns and mass media
3. Promote self-commitment of ESoP compliance for after-market systems and
nomadic devices and support provision of consumer information concerning
the safety implications and usability of in-vehicle devices (via consumer
organisations, EURO-NCAP etc.)
4. Report to the European Commission about their studies regarding the ESoP if
they have not already done so
Recommendations in terms of Monitoring and Enforcement 2
1
The language used should be chosen according to the addressee (designer/manufacturers/installer/fleet
managers)
2
Enforcement on Driver Behaviour is a matter of Member States, not the EC. Therefore the EC should
recommend taking appropriate measures; the choice of measure is up to the individual Member State.
6

Member States should:
1. Ensure that regularly updated information is available on the definition and
dynamics of the market for aftermarket and nomadic devices, in order to know
about the evolution of the market and of the techniques
2. Continue evaluation and monitoring of the impact of the ESoP and report to the
European Commission about the results.
3. Ensure that data collection is sufficiently detailed in order to perform further
evaluation and monitoring of the safety-impact of in-vehicle information and
communication systems, and especially of aftermarket systems and nomadic
devices
4. Take measures (for example legislation) to ensure secure fixing of aftermarket
systems and nomadic devices according to ECE R21, or equivalent
5. Continue to actively enforce existing Health and Safety legislation concerning atwork
driving practices
6. Take measures to ensure no hand-held use of nomadic devices by drivers while
driving
7. Identify and take the necessary actions on the unintended use or misuse 3 of visual
entertainment systems by drivers while driving (e.g. movies, TV, video games)
eSafety High Level Meeting with Industry, Brussels, 3 February 2005
Introduction
The eSafety Forum organised a High-Level Meeting with the main European industry
representatives on 3 rd February 2005. The meeting was chaired by the Director General
of Information Society and Media, Mr. Fabio Colasanti and was attended by over 70
persons representing the main automotive, telecommunications, insurance and telematics
industries, industry associations, user organisations representatives as well as
representatives of the Member States, European Parliament and the European
Commission. Mrs Viviane Reding, European Commissioner for Information Society and
Media opened the meeting. The chairs of the ten eSafety Forum Working Groups were
also present in the meeting.
The goal of the meeting was to discuss progress and the next steps in the priority topic, a
pan-European in-vehicle emergency call, eCall, on the basis of the detailed
recommendations and an action plan proposed by the eCall Driving Group.
Furthermore, the meeting discussed and drew conclusions on the continuation of the
work of the eSafety Forum and its Working Groups on the basis of a Commission’s
proposal.
3 Since the TV/DVD lock can be defeated (information on internet), it may be necessary to carry out regular
inspections or to take actions against the information providers
7

The participants of the High-Level meeting received a summary report on the progress
of the eSafety Forum and its ten Working Groups. The eCall Driving Group submitted a
proposal detailing actions for the roll-out of the pan-European eCall. The Commission
wrote a proposal on the next steps to be included in the eSafety initiative.
General Conclusions
eSafety is regarded as a crucially important element in the general framework of
improving road and vehicle safety in Europe and the quality of life of its citizens. The
participants of the High Level meeting were satisfied with the progress in the eSafety
Forum and its Working Groups and the chairs and members were congratulated for their
work.
The participants declared their support for the Commission’s activities in eSafety,
providing foresight, acting as a catalyst, supporting its work in the eSafety Forum and
funding RTD in eSafety systems and technologies.
Progress in eSafety
As many eSafety systems were already entering the market this would facilitate the change
in the focus of the eSafety initiative from technology development to deployment. An
example of such a system is ESP that already has proven its efficiency and anti-collision
radars, which led to the Commission Decision on the use of the 24 GHz frequency band
for automotive use.
A commitment was made by participants to increase efforts in eSafety and to extend the
active participation of the industry experts into the Working Groups. There was an
agreement to avoid unnecessary regulation and to proceed with voluntary measures and
negotiated agreements
It was noted that despite the positive results emanating from the High-Level Meeting
with the Member States on September 2004, progress had been slow in some cases and
the Commission was invited to accelerate its efforts for getting the Member States fully
inline with industry’s actions especially as regards eCall. The role of standardisation,
harmonisation, international co-operation and open in-vehicle platforms needs to be
emphasised in accelerating the take-up of in-vehicle systems and services.
The idea of creating a positive business case in the introduction of Intelligent Vehicle
Safety Systems was still important and the Commission were invited to investigate
possible fiscal incentives, based on the model used for environmental goals.
The In-Vehicle Emergency Call (eCall)
Studies previously made including the Commission’s Socio-Economic Study indicated
huge potential socio-economic benefits for the pan-European deployment of eCall. The
eCall Driving Group had made good progress in the eCall architecture based on the pan-
European E-112 Emergency Number, the Minimum Set of Data (MSD) and the
signatures for the Memorandum of Understanding (MoU).
8

The eCall Driving Group drafted an action plan and Recommendations which were
approved by participants. The main milestones for the eCall roll-out were defined as:
Obtaining signatures on the eCall MoU by all key stakeholders by June 2005
Agreeing on the business model, roll-out plan and standards by end of 2005
Full specification of in-vehicle and PSAP systems by June 2006
Roll-out of infrastructure and full scale field tests in 2006 and 2007
eCall as a standard equipment in all new vehicles starting from models introduced after
September 2009
The action plan and Recommendations can only be achieved as long as it has the
commitment of all stakeholders. The Commission was therefore asked to increase its
efforts to obtain the support of the insurance and telecommunications industries and the
Member States.
The Commission produced a report on the status of the pan-European emergency
number 112, its location enhancement (E-112) and eCall in the Member States. The
report identified that emergency services are operated at a regional and/or local level in
many Member States which makes the situation more complex. This is an issue the
Commission planned to address.
A positive business case for eCall, based on private-public partnership still needed to be
found and the Commission was asked to make an in-depth analysis on the possible use
of fiscal incentives (reduction of vehicle taxes).
The eCall Driving Group’s proposal to establish eCall-NET as a platform for all eCall
stakeholders was generally supported and the Commission was asked to create it. The
Commission was to support the eCall Driving Group in promoting and obtaining
signatures of the MoU by all stakeholders particularly the Member States. This could be
done by organising bilateral meetings, meetings between eCall experts and other relevant
measures.
Finland, the first Member State to proceed with nation-wide implementation of eCall by
2006, suggested all European stakeholders test their systems in their open test
environment. Representatives from Finland said they were keen to organise an Expert
Meeting on eCall in Helsinki on 15 April.
The Commission’s initiative for promoting standardisation of the eCall protocols and
interfaces by ETSI was welcomed. The participation of relevant experts in this work was
encouraged.
Key Actions
The Commission’s proposal for the next steps in the eSafety initiative included
Organising Expert Meetings with the Member States on eCall, RTTI, HMI
Adoption the 2nd eSafety Communication in March 2005, in view of having it on the
9

agenda of the June 2005 meeting of the Telecommunications, Transport and Energy
Council under the Luxembourg Presidency
Producing an updated version of the European Statement of Principles (ESoP), and
bringing it to the Council under the U.K. Presidency by the end of 2005
Monitoring the introduction of 24 GHz Short-Range Radars on the markets
Establishing a support function for the eSafety Forum through the currently open call in
the IST Programme, for continuing the promotion and dissemination of eSafety and
Providing further funding for RTD in eSafety technologies and systems through the IST
Programme Call 4
Role of the Commission
The Commission was invited to increase efforts to communicate the results of eSafety.
This could involve the Commission’s Vice-President in charge of communications, to
increase the co-operation between the different Commissioners dealing with transport
and road safety. The Commission could attempt to establish some link between eSafety
and CARS-21.
It was also suggested that the Commission could play an important role in increasing the
visibility of eSafety on a political level, especially in the European Council and the
European Parliament. The Commission was asked to examine the possible inclusion of
eSafety as a priority in the re-launch of the Lisbon strategy for 2005-2010. The
Commission was also to explore the possibility to use fiscal incentives for accelerating
the take-up of eSafety systems and to produce a report for the next meeting. As the
European Parliament was to hold discussions on car taxation in 2005, the Commission
could use this opportunity to inform the Parliament about the ideas on eSafety tax
incentives.
Other items
An idea was put forward to nominate European and national eSafety champions as a
mechanism to promote eSafety and to increase its visibility.
Efforts needed to be made to promote road safety the developing countries and make
the eSafety initiative known in the international arena.
The next meetings scheduled were:
• Plenary Session in Hannover on 2 June
• High-Level Meeting with the Member States in Brussels on 18 October
10

TABLE XX
Recommendations of the eCall Driving Group
With the aim of offering to all road users a harmonised, pan-European, interoperable
eCall service as a standard equipment in all new European vehicle models introduced
after September 2009, the eCall Driving Group recommends the following actions:
1. To fix the starting point of the action plan on June 2005
2. To establish an “eCallNet” consortium with financial support by June 2005,
including Member States, European Commission and key industry stakeholders,
committed to progress on the eCall implementation plan
3. The Commission to promote the signature of the MoU by all key stakeholders of
the eCall service chain (including the Member States) before June 2005
4. The Commission to adopt a 2 nd Communication on eSafety proposing specific
actions for Member States and industry by June 2005, including actions on eCall
5. All key stakeholders including insurance industries to prepare a feasible Business
Model for eCall to be adopted by December 2005
6. ETSI to produce relevant eCall standards (protocols, interfaces) by December
2005
7. All stakeholders to prepare a final implementation and rollout plan to be agreed
by December 2005
8. Key stakeholders to commit with a Letter of Intent (LoI) to start the project
implementation in December 2005
9. ACEA to finalize the in-vehicle eCall functionality system architecture and launch
the system development by June 06
10. Key Member States to upgrade their infrastructures of Public Safety Answering
Points (PSAPs) to allow the receiving and processing eCalls by June 2007
11. “Early Adopter” Member States in collaboration with the Commission and the
industry to perform full-scale field tests of the eCall system until December 2007
12. All Member States to complete the upgrading of their PSAPs infrastructure and
ACEA to start the introduction of eCall as standard option in all new vehicles by
September 2009
The Second eSafety High Level Meeting with Member States, Brussels,
18 October 2005
Introduction
11

The Commission organised the 2nd High-Level Meeting with the Member States on 18
October 2005. The meeting was attended by over 60 persons representing 21 Member
States, Norway, industry associations, the eSafety Forum Working Groups and the
European Commission. The goal of the meeting was to discuss progress and obtain
further commitment from the Member States on the road map plan agreed by the
Commission and the industry on the priority topic, the pan-European in vehicle
emergency call, eCall.
Furthermore, the results achieved on three of the eSafety Working Groups
(Implementation Road Maps, Human Machine Interaction and Real Time Travel and
Traffic Information) as well as the i2010 information society strategy were presented.
The participants of this 2nd eSafety High Level meeting, discussed the Commission’s 2nd
Communication on eSafety and in particular recommendations to the Member States.
Participants also received progress reports on the eCall initiative the Implementation
Road Map and the User Outreach Working Groups.
General Conclusions
Road Safety
An introductory point made at the meeting was that road safety was to be regarded as an
utmost priority for improving the quality of life of citizens. A great achievement would
be to have the following EU presidency (Austria) to include it as a priority.
eSafety
eSafety is a crucially important element in the general framework of improving road and
vehicle safety in Europe. A public-private partnership approach is the most effective way
for achieving eSafety goals. The Commission intends to avoid unnecessary regulation and
to proceed with voluntary measures and negotiated agreements.
There was overall satisfaction with the progress achieved in the eSafety Forum and its
Working Groups. Chairs and members of the Working Groups were congratulated for
their work. However, in order to accelerate the take-up of in-vehicle systems and services
greater emphasis needed to be on standardisation, harmonisation, and open in-vehicle
platforms.
The In-Vehicle Emergency Call (eCall)
12

There was unanimous support for the implementation of a pan-European in-vehicle
emergency call service. This is an important contribution to reduce the number of
fatalities and the severity of injuries caused by road accidents. However, in order to
maximise benefits for all European citizens, the service needs to be implemented in all
vehicles in all Member States. This highlights the importance of the signatures for the
eCall Memorandum of Understanding (MoU). The aim was to have all Member States
sign the eCall MoU by 2005. Finland and Sweden had already signed the MoU and
Greece, Italy, Lithuania and Slovenia joined them. Other countries, which had initiated
the signature procedure of the eCall MoU were the Czech Republic, Cyprus, Denmark,
The Netherlands and Germany. In addition, progress needs to be monitored on the
implementation and handling of the pan-European emergency number 112, its location
enhancement (E112) and eCall in the Member States.
Requirements for eCall:
• The Commission stated it would increase its support to the Member States, in
particular by creating a Sub-Group under the Civil Protection Committee
specialised in emergency calls and by monitoring its progress
• National level and interdepartmental Working Groups had to be established to
support the deployment of eCall
• ETSI was to develop pan-European standards for E112 and eCall
• The use of eCall in-vehicle open platform was to be extended to other public
service applications in the future
• Commission had to find a positive business case with a detailed cost-benefit
analysis
• Potential data privacy issues needed to be addressed
Other items
The Commission’s proposal for the i2010 initiative and its Intelligent Car Flagship
initiative was welcomed. This is deemed to create positive social and economic impacts.
The Commission was asked to:
• address the need for radio-spectrum allocation for future eSafety applications
• endorse the Final Report on the Implementation Road Map Working Group
eSafety stakeholders were asked to refer to the results of the Implementation Road Map
Working Group as a basis for future initiatives to accelerate the implementation of
eSafety systems.
The promotion of private-public partnerships is a way to create positive business cases.
It is important to introduce appropriate the necessary incentives to accelerate the
introduction of eSafety systems.
13

Recommendations for the introduction of
the pan-European eCall
Appendix 6
All Communications and Directives

COUNCIL DECISION
COUNCIL DECISION
of 29 July 1991
on the introduction of a single European emergency call number
(91/396/EEC)
THE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES,
Having regard to the Treaty establishing the European Economic Community, and in particular Article 235 thereof,
Having regard to the proposal from the Commission (1),
Having regard to the opinion of the European Parliament (2),
Having regard to the opinion of the Economic and Social Committee (3),
Whereas the telephone is the best means of access to emergency services of all kinds; whereas at present various
telephone numbers are used for this purpose in the Member States;
Whereas the effect of such differences is to create problems in contacting the responsible services for citizens facing
emergency situations in other Member States;
Whereas the substantial increase in both private and business travel within the Community has created a demand for
the introduction of a single European emergency call number;
Whereas the introduction of new technologies in public telephone networks and the coordinated introduction of
advanced telecommunications infrastructures present a unique opportunity for the implementation of a single
European emergency call number, in parallel to the existing national emergency call numbers, where appropriate;
Whereas the Council, in its resolution of 13 February 1989 on the new developments in Community cooperation on
civil protection (4), stressed the desirability of a Community¾wide single additional emergency telephone number
which will in particular enable citizens in an emergency or disaster to call the relevant national emergency services;
Whereas the European Parliament has repeatedly emphasized the importance of the introduction of such a number, in
particular in its resolutions of 12 December 1988 on telecommunications (5);
Whereas the European Conference of Post and Telecommunications (CEPT) recommended in its recommendation
T/SF1 of 1976 the use of the number 112 as the single European emergency call number;
Whereas this recommendation has only been followed by a very small number of Member States;
Whereas it will be possible in all Member States to devise a plan to make the number 112 available;
Page 1 of 3
Whereas several Member States could introduce the number 112 by 1992; whereas however, for some Member States
this would cause problems since they would need to make unplanned changes or to change plans already made;
Whereas, therefore, flexibility is needed in the time schedule for introducing the emergency call number in these
http://europa.eu.int/ISPO/infosoc/legreg/docs/91396eec.html
07/03/2005

COUNCIL DECISION
Member States;
Whereas the introduction of the number 112 will be possible by 1996, even in the Member States where difficulties
exist;
Whereas, in addition to the technical, financial, operational and commercial implications of introducing the chosen
number within public telecommunications networks, Member States will have to make the necessary organizational
arrangements best suited to the national organization of the emergency systems, in order to ensure that calls to this
number are adequately answered and handled; whereas it would be desirable to devote efforts to easing difficulties of
comprehension which may arise from different language capabilities, taking account of the possibilities of the various
national systems; whereas the single European emergency call number could therefore be used in parallel with any
other existing national arrangements, where appropriate;
Whereas the provision of emergency call numbers is prescribed in all Member States by law, regulation, or
administrative action, and divergent developments in this area must be avoided;
Whereas the Treaty does not provide, for the adoption of this Decision, powers other than those of Article 235,
HAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:
Article 1
1. Member States shall ensure that the number 112 is introduced in public telephone networks as well as in future
integrated services digital networks and public mobile services, as the single European emergency call number.
2. The single European emergency call number shall be introduced in parallel with any other existing national
emergency call numbers, where this seems appropriate. Article 2 The single European emergency call number shall
be introduced by 31 December 1992 at the latest, except where Article 3 applies.
Article 3
1. Where particular technical, financial, geographical or organizational difficulties in a Member State make the full
introduction of the single European emergency call number by the date provided for in Article 2 impossible or too
costly, the Member State concerned shall inform the Commission of these difficulties.
2. In the case referred to in paragraph 1, the Member State concerned shall communicate to the Commission, with
adequate explanations and justification, a new date for the full introduction of the single European emergency call
number which, however, must be no later than 31 December 1996.
Article 4
Member States shall take the necessary measures to ensure that calls to the single European emergency call number
are appropriately answered and handled, in a manner best suited to the national organization of emergency systems
and within the technological possibilities of the networks.
Article 5
This Decision is addressed to the Member States.
Done at Brussels, 29 July 1991.
For the Council
The President
H. VAN DEN BROEK
(1) OJ No C 275, 1. 11. 1990, p. 4.
http://europa.eu.int/ISPO/infosoc/legreg/docs/91396eec.html
Page 2 of 3
07/03/2005

COUNCIL DECISION
(2) OJ No C 231, 17. 9. 1990, p. 83 and OJ No C 183, 15. 7. 1991.
(3) OJ No C 62, 12. 3. 1990, p. 1.
(4) OJ No C 44, 23. 2. 1989, p. 1.
(5) OJ No C 12, 16. 1. 1989, p. 66.
http://europa.eu.int/ISPO/infosoc/legreg/docs/91396eec.html
Page 3 of 3
07/03/2005

24.4.2002 L 108/51
Official Journal of the European Communities
EN
DIRECTIVE 2002/22/EC OF THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND OF THE COUNCIL
of 7 March 2002
on universal service and users' rights relating to electronic communications networks and
services (Universal Service Directive)
THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND THE
COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION,
Having regard to the Treaty establishing the European
Community, and in particular Article 95 thereof,
Having regard to the proposal from the Commission ( 1 ),
Having regard to the opinion of the Economic and Social
Committee ( 2 ),
Having regard to the opinion of the Committee of the
Regions ( 3 ),
Acting in accordance with the procedure laid down in Article
251 of the Treaty ( 4 ),
Whereas:
(1) The liberalisation of the telecommunications sector and
increasing competition and choice for communications
services go hand in hand with parallel action to create a
harmonised regulatory framework which secures the
delivery of universal service. The concept of universal
service should evolve to reflect advances in technology,
market developments and changes in user demand. The
regulatory framework established for the full
liberalisation of the telecommunications market in 1998
in the Community defined the minimum scope of
universal service obligations and established rules for its
costing and financing.
(2) Under Article 153 of the Treaty, the Community is to
contribute to the protection of consumers.
(3) The Community and its Member States have undertaken
commitments on the regulatory framework of
telecommunications networks and services in the
context of the World Trade Organisation (WTO)
agreement on basic telecommunications. Any member
of the WTO has the right to define the kind of universal
( 1 ) OJ C 365 E, 19.12.2000, p. 238 and OJ C 332 E, 27.11.2001,
p. 292.
( 2 ) OJ C 139, 11.5.2001, p. 15.
( 3 ) OJ C 144, 16.5.2001, p. 60.
( 4 ) Opinion of the European Parliament of 13 June 2001 (not yet
published in the Official Journal), Council Common Position of
17 September 2001 (OJ C 337, 30.11.2001, p. 55) and Decision
of the European Parliament of 12 December 2001 (not yet
published in the Official Journal). Council Decision of 14 February
2002.
service obligation it wishes to maintain. Such
obligations will not be regarded as anti-competitive
per se, provided they are administered in a transparent,
non-discriminatory and competitively neutral manner
and are not more burdensome than necessary for the
kind of universal service defined by the member.
(4) Ensuring universal service (that is to say, the provision
of a defined minimum set of services to all end-users at
an affordable price) may involve the provision of some
services to some end-users at prices that depart from
those resulting from normal market conditions.
However, compensating undertakings designated to
provide such services in such circumstances need not
result in any distortion of competition, provided that
designated undertakings are compensated for the
specific net cost involved and provided that the net cost
burden is recovered in a competitively neutral way.
(5) In a competitive market, certain obligations should
apply to all undertakings providing publicly available
telephone services at fixed locations and others should
apply only to undertakings enjoying significant market
power or which have been designated as a universal
service operator.
(6) The network termination point represents a boundary
for regulatory purposes between the regulatory
framework for electronic communication networks and
services and the regulation of telecommunication
terminal equipment. Defining the location of the
network termination point is the responsibility of the
national regulatory authority, where necessary on the
basis of a proposal by the relevant undertakings.
(7) Member States should continue to ensure that the
services set out in Chapter II are made available with
the quality specified to all end-users in their territory,
irrespective of their geographical location, and, in the
light of specific national conditions, at an affordable
price. Member States may, in the context of universal
service obligations and in the light of national
conditions, take specific measures for consumers in
rural or geographically isolated areas to ensure their
access to the services set out in the Chapter II and the
affordability of those services, as well as ensure under

L 108/52 24.4.2002
Official Journal of the European Communities
EN
the same conditions this access, in particular for the
elderly, the disabled and for people with special social
needs. Such measures may also include measures
directly targeted at consumers with special social needs
providing support to identified consumers, for example
by means of specific measures, taken after the
examination of individual requests, such as the paying
off of debts.
(8) A fundamental requirement of universal service is to
provide users on request with a connection to the
public telephone network at a fixed location, at an
affordable price. The requirement is limited to a single
narrowband network connection, the provision of
which may be restricted by Member States to the
end-user's primary location/residence, and does not
extend to the Integrated Services Digital Network (ISDN)
which provides two or more connections capable of
being used simultaneously. There should be no
constraints on the technical means by which the
connection is provided, allowing for wired or wireless
technologies, nor any constraints on which operators
provide part or all of universal service obligations.
Connections to the public telephone network at a fixed
location should be capable of supporting speech and
data communications at rates sufficient for access to
online services such as those provided via the public
Internet. The speed of Internet access experienced by a
given user may depend on a number of factors
including the provider(s) of Internet connectivity as well
as the given application for which a connection is being
used. The data rate that can be supported by a single
narrowband connection to the public telephone network
depends on the capabilities of the subscriber's terminal
equipment as well as the connection. For this reason it
is not appropriate to mandate a specific data or bit rate
at Community level. Currently available voice band
modems typically offer a data rate of 56 kbit/s and
employ automatic data rate adaptation to cater for
variable line quality, with the result that the achieved
data rate may be lower than 56 kbit/s. Flexibility is
required on the one hand to allow Member States to
take measures where necessary to ensure that
connections are capable of supporting such a data rate,
and on the other hand to allow Member States where
relevant to permit data rates below this upper limit of
56 kbits/s in order, for example, to exploit the
capabilities of wireless technologies (including cellular
wireless networks) to deliver universal service to a
higher proportion of the population. This may be of
particular importance in some accession countries
where household penetration of traditional telephone
connections remains relatively low. In specific cases
where the connection to the public telephony network
at a fixed location is clearly insufficient to support
satisfactory Internet access, Member States should be
able to require the connection to be brought up to the
level enjoyed by the majority of subscribers so that it
supports data rates sufficient for access to the Internet.
Where such specific measures produce a net cost
burden for those consumers concerned, the net effect
may be included in any net cost calculation of universal
service obligations.
(9) The provisions of this Directive do not preclude
Member States from designating different undertakings
to provide the network and service elements of
universal service. Designated undertakings providing
network elements may be required to ensure such
construction and maintenance as are necessary and
proportionate to meet all reasonable requests for
connection at a fixed location to the public telephone
network and for access to publicly available telephone
services at a fixed location.
(10) Affordable price means a price defined by Member
States at national level in the light of specific national
conditions, and may involve setting common tariffs
irrespective of location or special tariff options to deal
with the needs of low-income users. Affordability for
individual consumers is related to their ability to
monitor and control their expenditure.
(11) Directory information and a directory enquiry service
constitute an essential access tool for publicly available
telephone services and form part of the universal service
obligation. Users and consumers desire comprehensive
directories and a directory enquiry service covering all
listed telephone subscribers and their numbers
(including fixed and mobile numbers) and want this
information to be presented in a non-preferential
fashion. Directive 97/66/EC of the European Parliament
and of the Council of 15 December 1997 concerning
the processing of personal data and the protection of
privacy in the telecommunications sector ( 1 ) ensures the
subscribers' right to privacy with regard to the inclusion
of their personal information in a public directory.
(12) For the citizen, it is important for there to be adequate
provision of public pay telephones, and for users to be
able to call emergency telephone numbers and, in
particular, the single European emergency call number
(‘112’) free of charge from any telephone, including
public pay telephones, without the use of any means of
( 1 ) OJ L 24, 30.1.1998, p. 1.

24.4.2002 L 108/53
Official Journal of the European Communities
EN
payment. Insufficient information about the existence of
‘112’ deprives citizens of the additional safety ensured
by the existence of this number at European level
especially during their travel in other Member States.
(13) Member States should take suitable measures in order to
guarantee access to and affordability of all publicly
available telephone services at a fixed location for
disabled users and users with special social needs.
Specific measures for disabled users could include, as
appropriate, making available accessible public
telephones, public text telephones or equivalent
measures for deaf or speech-impaired people, providing
services such as directory enquiry services or equivalent
measures free of charge for blind or partially sighted
people, and providing itemised bills in alternative
format on request for blind or partially sighted people.
Specific measures may also need to be taken to enable
disabled users and users with special social needs to
access emergency services ‘112’ and to give them a
similar possibility to choose between different operators
or service providers as other consumers. Quality of
service standards have been developed for a range of
parameters to assess the quality of services received by
subscribers and how well undertakings designated with
universal service obligations perform in achieving these
standards. Quality of service standards do not yet exist
in respect of disabled users. Performance standards and
relevant parameters should be developed for disabled
users and are provided for in Article 11 of this
Directive. Moreover, national regulatory authorities
should be enabled to require publication of quality of
service performance data if and when such standards
and parameters are developed. The provider of universal
service should not take measures to prevent users from
benefiting fully from services offered by different
operators or service providers, in combination with its
own services offered as part of universal service.
(14) The importance of access to and use of the public
telephone network at a fixed location is such that it
should be available to anyone reasonably requesting it.
In accordance with the principle of subsidiarity, it is for
Member States to decide on the basis of objective
criteria which undertakings have universal service
obligations for the purposes of this Directive, where
appropriate taking into account the ability and the
willingness of undertakings to accept all or part of the
universal service obligations. It is important that
universal service obligations are fulfilled in the most
efficient fashion so that users generally pay prices that
correspond to efficient cost provision. It is likewise
important that universal service operators maintain the
integrity of the network as well as service continuity
and quality. The development of greater competition
and choice provide more possibilities for all or part of
the universal service obligations to be provided by
undertakings other than those with significant market
power. Therefore, universal service obligations could in
some cases be allocated to operators demonstrating the
most cost-effective means of delivering access and
services, including by competitive or comparative
selection procedures. Corresponding obligations could
be included as conditions in authorisations to provide
publicly available services.
(15) Member States should monitor the situation of
consumers with respect to their use of publicly available
telephone services and in particular with respect to
affordability. The affordability of telephone service is
related to the information which users receive regarding
telephone usage expenses as well as the relative cost of
telephone usage compared to other services, and is also
related to their ability to control expenditure.
Affordability therefore means giving power to
consumers through obligations imposed on
undertakings designated as having universal service
obligations. These obligations include a specified level of
itemised billing, the possibility for consumers selectively
to block certain calls (such as high-priced calls to
premium services), the possibility for consumers to
control expenditure via pre-payment means and the
possibility for consumers to offset up-front connection
fees. Such measures may need to be reviewed and
changed in the light of market developments. Current
conditions do not warrant a requirement for operators
with universal service obligations to alert subscribers
where a predetermined limit of expenditure is exceeded
or an abnormal calling pattern occurs. Review of the
relevant legislative provisions in future should consider
whether there is a possible need to alert subscribers for
these reasons.
(16) Except in cases of persistent late payment or
non-payment of bills, consumers should be protected
from immediate disconnection from the network on the
grounds of an unpaid bill and, particularly in the case of
disputes over high bills for premium rate services,
should continue to have access to essential telephone
services pending resolution of the dispute. Member
States may decide that such access may continue to be
provided only if the subscriber continues to pay line
rental charges.
(17) Quality and price are key factors in a competitive
market and national regulatory authorities should be
able to monitor achieved quality of service for
undertakings which have been designated as having
universal service obligations. In relation to the quality of
service attained by such undertakings, national

L 108/54 24.4.2002
Official Journal of the European Communities
EN
regulatory authorities should be able to take appropriate
measures where they deem it necessary. National
regulatory authorities should also be able to monitor the
achieved quality of services of other undertakings
providing public telephone networks and/or publicly
available telephone services to users at fixed locations.
(18) Member States should, where necessary, establish
mechanisms for financing the net cost of universal
service obligations in cases where it is demonstrated
that the obligations can only be provided at a loss or at
a net cost which falls outside normal commercial
standards. It is important to ensure that the net cost of
universal service obligations is properly calculated and
that any financing is undertaken with minimum
distortion to the market and to undertakings, and is
compatible with the provisions of Articles 87 and 88 of
the Treaty.
(19) Any calculation of the net cost of universal service
should take due account of costs and revenues, as well
as the intangible benefits resulting from providing
universal service, but should not hinder the general aim
of ensuring that pricing structures reflect costs. Any net
costs of universal service obligations should be
calculated on the basis of transparent procedures.
(20) Taking into account intangible benefits means that an
estimate in monetary terms, of the indirect benefits that
an undertaking derives by virtue of its position as
provider of universal service, should be deducted from
the direct net cost of universal service obligations in
order to determine the overall cost burden.
(21) When a universal service obligation represents an unfair
burden on an undertaking, it is appropriate to allow
Member States to establish mechanisms for efficiently
recovering net costs. Recovery via public funds
constitutes one method of recovering the net costs of
universal service obligations. It is also reasonable for
established net costs to be recovered from all users in a
transparent fashion by means of levies on undertakings.
Member States should be able to finance the net costs of
different elements of universal service through different
mechanisms, and/or to finance the net costs of some or
all elements from either of the mechanisms or a
combination of both. In the case of cost recovery by
means of levies on undertakings, Member States should
ensure that that the method of allocation amongst them
is based on objective and non-discriminatory criteria
and is in accordance with the principle of
proportionality. This principle does not prevent Member
States from exempting new entrants which have not yet
achieved any significant market presence. Any funding
mechanism should ensure that market participants only
contribute to the financing of universal service
obligations and not to other activities which are not
directly linked to the provision of the universal service
obligations. Recovery mechanisms should in all cases
respect the principles of Community law, and in
particular in the case of sharing mechanisms those of
non-discrimination and proportionality. Any funding
mechanism should ensure that users in one Member
State do not contribute to universal service costs in
another Member State, for example when making calls
from one Member State to another.
(22) Where Member States decide to finance the net cost of
universal service obligations from public funds, this
should be understood to comprise funding from general
government budgets including other public financing
sources such as state lotteries.
(23) The net cost of universal service obligations may be
shared between all or certain specified classes of
undertaking. Member States should ensure that the
sharing mechanism respects the principles of
transparency, least market distortion, non-discrimination
and proportionality. Least market distortion means that
contributions should be recovered in a way that as far
as possible minimises the impact of the financial burden
falling on end-users, for example by spreading
contributions as widely as possible.
(24) National regulatory authorities should satisfy themselves
that those undertakings benefiting from universal service
funding provide a sufficient level of detail of the specific
elements requiring such funding in order to justify their
request. Member States' schemes for the costing and
financing of universal service obligations should be
communicated to the Commission for verification of
compatibility with the Treaty. There are incentives for
designated operators to raise the assessed net cost of
universal service obligations. Therefore Member States
should ensure effective transparency and control of
amounts charged to finance universal service
obligations.
(25) Communications markets continue to evolve in terms of
the services used and the technical means used to
deliver them to users. The universal service obligations,
which are defined at a Community level, should be
periodically reviewed with a view to proposing that the
scope be changed or redefined. Such a review should
take account of evolving social, commercial and
technological conditions and the fact that any change of
scope should be subject to the twin test of services that
become available to a substantial majority of the

24.4.2002 L 108/55
Official Journal of the European Communities
EN
population, with a consequent risk of social exclusion
for those who can not afford them. Care should be
taken in any change of the scope of universal service
obligations to ensure that certain technological choices
are not artificially promoted above others, that a
disproportionate financial burden is not imposed on
sector undertakings (thereby endangering market
developments and innovation) and that any financing
burden does not fall unfairly on consumers with lower
incomes. Any change of scope automatically means that
any net cost can be financed via the methods permitted
in this Directive. Member States are not permitted to
impose on market players financial contributions which
relate to measures which are not part of universal
service obligations. Individual Member States remain
free to impose special measures (outside the scope of
universal service obligations) and finance them in
conformity with Community law but not by means of
contributions from market players.
(26) More effective competition across all access and service
markets will give greater choice for users. The extent of
effective competition and choice varies across the
Community and varies within Member States between
geographical areas and between access and service
markets. Some users may be entirely dependent on the
provision of access and services by an undertaking with
significant market power. In general, for reasons of
efficiency and to encourage effective competition, it is
important that the services provided by an undertaking
with significant market power reflect costs. For reasons
of efficiency and social reasons, end-user tariffs should
reflect demand conditions as well as cost conditions,
provided that this does not result in distortions of
competition. There is a risk that an undertaking with
significant market power may act in various ways to
inhibit entry or distort competition, for example by
charging excessive prices, setting predatory prices,
compulsory bundling of retail services or showing
undue preference to certain customers. Therefore,
national regulatory authorities should have powers to
impose, as a last resort and after due consideration,
retail regulation on an undertaking with significant
market power. Price cap regulation, geographical
averaging or similar instruments, as well as
non-regulatory measures such as publicly available
comparisons of retail tariffs, may be used to achieve the
twin objectives of promoting effective competition
whilst pursuing public interest needs, such as
maintaining the affordability of publicly available
telephone services for some consumers. Access to
appropriate cost accounting information is necessary, in
order for national regulatory authorities to fulfil their
regulatory duties in this area, including the imposition
of any tariff controls. However, regulatory controls on
retail services should only be imposed where national
regulatory authorities consider that relevant wholesale
measures or measures regarding carrier selection or
pre-selection would fail to achieve the objective of
ensuring effective competition and public interest.
(27) Where a national regulatory authority imposes
obligations to implement a cost accounting system in
order to support price controls, it may itself undertake
an annual audit to ensure compliance with that cost
accounting system, provided that it has the necessary
qualified staff, or it may require the audit to be carried
out by another qualified body, independent of the
operator concerned.
(28) It is considered necessary to ensure the continued
application of the existing provisions relating to the
minimum set of leased line services in Community
telecommunications legislation, in particular in Council
Directive 92/44/EEC of 5 June 1992 on the application
of open network provision to leased lines ( 1 ), until such
time as national regulatory authorities determine, in
accordance with the market analysis procedures laid
down in Directive 2002/21/EC of the European
Parliament and of the Council of 7 March 2002 on a
common regulatory framework for electronic
communications networks and services (Framework
Directive) ( 2 ), that such provisions are no longer needed
because a sufficiently competitive market has developed
in their territory. The degree of competition is likely to
vary between different markets of leased lines in the
minimum set, and in different parts of the territory. In
undertaking the market analysis, national regulatory
authorities should make separate assessments for each
market of leased lines in the minimum set, taking into
account their geographic dimension. Leased lines
services constitute mandatory services to be provided
without recourse to any compensation mechanisms. The
provision of leased lines outside of the minimum set of
leased lines should be covered by general retail
regulatory provisions rather than specific requirements
covering the supply of the minimum set.
(29) National regulatory authorities may also, in the light of
an analysis of the relevant market, require mobile
operators with significant market power to enable their
subscribers to access the services of any interconnected
provider of publicly available telephone services on a
call-by-call basis or by means of pre-selection.
( 1 ) OJ L 165, 19.6.1992, p. 27. Directive as last amended by
Commission Decision No 98/80/EC (OJ L 14, 20.1.1998, p. 27).
( 2 ) See page 33 of this Official Journal.

L 108/56 24.4.2002
Official Journal of the European Communities
EN
(30) Contracts are an important tool for users and
consumers to ensure a minimum level of transparency
of information and legal security. Most service providers
in a competitive environment will conclude contracts
with their customers for reasons of commercial
desirability. In addition to the provisions of this
Directive, the requirements of existing Community
consumer protection legislation relating to contracts, in
particular Council Directive 93/13/EEC of 5 April 1993
on unfair terms in consumer contracts ( 1 ) and Directive
97/7/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council
of 20 May 1997 on the protection of consumers in
respect of distance contracts ( 2 ), apply to consumer
transactions relating to electronic networks and services.
Specifically, consumers should enjoy a minimum level
of legal certainty in respect of their contractual relations
with their direct telephone service provider, such that
the contractual terms, conditions, quality of service,
condition for termination of the contract and the
service, compensation measures and dispute resolution
are specified in their contracts. Where service providers
other than direct telephone service providers conclude
contracts with consumers, the same information should
be included in those contracts as well. The measures to
ensure transparency on prices, tariffs, terms and
conditions will increase the ability of consumers to
optimise their choices and thus to benefit fully from
competition.
(31) End-users should have access to publicly available
information on communications services. Member States
should be able to monitor the quality of services which
are offered in their territories. National regulatory
authorities should be able systematically to collect
information on the quality of services offered in their
territories on the basis of criteria which allow
comparability between service providers and between
Member States. Undertakings providing communications
services, operating in a competitive environment, are
likely to make adequate and up-to-date information on
their services publicly available for reasons of
commercial advantage. National regulatory authorities
should nonetheless be able to require publication of
such information where it is demonstrated that such
information is not effectively available to the public.
(32) End-users should be able to enjoy a guarantee of
interoperability in respect of all equipment sold in the
Community for the reception of digital television.
Member States should be able to require minimum
harmonised standards in respect of such equipment.
Such standards could be adapted from time to time in
the light of technological and market developments.
( 1 ) OJ L 95, 21.4.1993, p. 29.
( 2 ) OJ L 144, 4.6.1997, p. 19.
(33) It is desirable to enable consumers to achieve the fullest
connectivity possible to digital television sets.
Interoperability is an evolving concept in dynamic
markets. Standards bodies should do their utmost to
ensure that appropriate standards evolve along with the
technologies concerned. It is likewise important to
ensure that connectors are available on television sets
that are capable of passing all the necessary elements of
a digital signal, including the audio and video streams,
conditional access information, service information,
application program interface (API) information and
copy protection information. This Directive therefore
ensures that the functionality of the open interface for
digital television sets is not limited by network
operators, service providers or equipment manufacturers
and continues to evolve in line with technological
developments. For display and presentation of digital
interactive television services, the realisation of a
common standard through a market-driven mechanism
is recognised as a consumer benefit. Member States and
the Commission may take policy initiatives, consistent
with the Treaty, to encourage this development.
(34) All end-users should continue to enjoy access to
operator assistance services whatever organisation
provides access to the public telephone network.
(35) The provision of directory enquiry services and
directories is already open to competition. The
provisions of this Directive complement the provisions
of Directive 97/66/EC by giving subscribers a right to
have their personal data included in a printed or
electronic directory. All service providers which assign
telephone numbers to their subscribers are obliged to
make relevant information available in a fair,
cost-oriented and non-discriminatory manner.
(36) It is important that users should be able to call the
single European emergency number ‘112’, and any other
national emergency telephone numbers, free of charge,
from any telephone, including public pay telephones,
without the use of any means of payment. Member
States should have already made the necessary
organisational arrangements best suited to the national
organisation of the emergency systems, in order to
ensure that calls to this number are adequately answered
and handled. Caller location information, to be made
available to the emergency services, will improve the
level of protection and the security of users of ‘112’
services and assist the emergency services, to the extent
technically feasible, in the discharge of their duties,
provided that the transfer of calls and associated data to
the emergency services concerned is guaranteed. The
reception and use of such information should comply
with relevant Community law on the processing of
personal data. Steady information technology

24.4.2002 L 108/57
Official Journal of the European Communities
EN
improvements will progressively support the
simultaneous handling of several languages over the
networks at a reasonable cost. This in turn will ensure
additional safety for European citizens using the ‘112’
emergency call number.
(37) Easy access to international telephone services is vital
for European citizens and European businesses. ‘00’ has
already been established as the standard international
telephone access code for the Community. Special
arrangements for making calls between adjacent
locations across borders between Member States may be
established or continued. The ITU has assigned, in
accordance with ITU Recommendation E.164, code
‘3883’ to the European Telephony Numbering Space
(ETNS). In order to ensure connection of calls to the
ETNS, undertakings operating public telephone
networks should ensure that calls using ‘3883’ are
directly or indirectly interconnected to ETNS serving
networks specified in the relevant European
Telecommunications Standards Institute (ETSI)
standards. Such interconnection arrangements should be
governed by the provisions of Directive 2002/19/EC of
the European Parliament and of the Council of 7 March
2002 on access to, and interconnection of, electronic
communications networks and associated facilities
(Access Directive) ( 1 ).
(38) Access by end-users to all numbering resources in the
Community is a vital pre-condition for a single market.
It should include freephone, premium rate, and other
non-geographic numbers, except where the called
subscriber has chosen, for commercial reasons, to limit
access from certain geographical areas. Tariffs charged
to parties calling from outside the Member State
concerned need not be the same as for those parties
calling from inside that Member State.
(39) Tone dialling and calling line identification facilities are
normally available on modern telephone exchanges and
can therefore increasingly be provided at little or no
expense. Tone dialling is increasingly being used for
user interaction with special services and facilities,
including value added services, and the absence of this
facility can prevent the user from making use of these
services. Member States are not required to impose
obligations to provide these facilities when they are
already available. Directive 97/66/EC safeguards the
privacy of users with regard to itemised billing, by
giving them the means to protect their right to privacy
when calling line identification is implemented. The
development of these services on a pan-European basis
would benefit consumers and is encouraged by this
Directive.
( 1 ) See page 7 of this Official Journal.
(40) Number portability is a key facilitator of consumer
choice and effective competition in a competitive
telecommunications environment such that end-users
who so request should be able to retain their number(s)
on the public telephone network independently of the
organisation providing service. The provision of this
facility between connections to the public telephone
network at fixed and non-fixed locations is not covered
by this Directive. However, Member States may apply
provisions for porting numbers between networks
providing services at a fixed location and mobile
networks.
(41) The impact of number portability is considerably
strengthened when there is transparent tariff
information, both for end-users who port their numbers
and also for end-users who call those who have ported
their numbers. National regulatory authorities should,
where feasible, facilitate appropriate tariff transparency
as part of the implementation of number portability.
(42) When ensuring that pricing for interconnection related
to the provision of number portability is cost-oriented,
national regulatory authorities may also take account of
prices available in comparable markets.
(43) Currently, Member States impose certain ‘must carry’
obligations on networks for the distribution of radio or
television broadcasts to the public. Member States
should be able to lay down proportionate obligations on
undertakings under their jurisdiction, in the interest of
legitimate public policy considerations, but such
obligations should only be imposed where they are
necessary to meet general interest objectives clearly
defined by Member States in conformity with
Community law and should be proportionate,
transparent and subject to periodical review. ‘Must carry’
obligations imposed by Member States should be
reasonable, that is they should be proportionate and
transparent in the light of clearly defined general
interest objectives, and could, where appropriate, entail
a provision for proportionate remuneration. Such ‘must
carry’ obligations may include the transmission of
services specifically designed to enable appropriate
access by disabled users.
(44) Networks used for the distribution of radio or television
broadcasts to the public include cable, satellite and
terrestrial broadcasting networks. They might also
include other networks to the extent that a significant
number of end-users use such networks as their
principal means to receive radio and television
broadcasts.

L 108/58 24.4.2002
Official Journal of the European Communities
EN
(45) Services providing content such as the offer for sale of a
package of sound or television broadcasting content are
not covered by the common regulatory framework for
electronic communications networks and services.
Providers of such services should not be subject to
universal service obligations in respect of these
activities. This Directive is without prejudice to
measures taken at national level, in compliance with
Community law, in respect of such services.
(46) Where a Member State seeks to ensure the provision of
other specific services throughout its national territory,
such obligations should be implemented on a cost
efficient basis and outside the scope of universal service
obligations. Accordingly, Member States may undertake
additional measures (such as facilitating the
development of infrastructure or services in
circumstances where the market does not satisfactorily
address the requirements of end-users or consumers), in
conformity with Community law. As a reaction to the
Commission's e-Europe initiative, the Lisbon European
Council of 23 and 24 March 2000 called on Member
States to ensure that all schools have access to the
Internet and to multimedia resources.
(47) In the context of a competitive environment, the views
of interested parties, including users and consumers,
should be taken into account by national regulatory
authorities when dealing with issues related to
end-users' rights. Effective procedures should be
available to deal with disputes between consumers, on
the one hand, and undertakings providing publicly
available communications services, on the other.
Member States should take full account of Commission
Recommendation 98/257/EC of 30 March 1998 on the
principles applicable to the bodies responsible for
out-of-court settlement of consumer disputes ( 1 ).
(48) Co-regulation could be an appropriate way of
stimulating enhanced quality standards and improved
service performance. Co-regulation should be guided by
the same principles as formal regulation, i.e. it should
be objective, justified, proportional, non-discriminatory
and transparent.
(49) This Directive should provide for elements of consumer
protection, including clear contract terms and dispute
resolution, and tariff transparency for consumers. It
should also encourage the extension of such benefits to
other categories of end-users, in particular small and
medium-sized enterprises.
(50) The provisions of this Directive do not prevent a
Member State from taking measures justified on
grounds set out in Articles 30 and 46 of the Treaty, and
in particular on grounds of public security, public policy
and public morality.
(51) Since the objectives of the proposed action, namely
setting a common level of universal service for
telecommunications for all European users and of
harmonising conditions for access to and use of public
telephone networks at a fixed location and related
publicly available telephone services and also achieving
a harmonised framework for the regulation of electronic
communications services, electronic communications
networks and associated facilities, cannot be sufficiently
achieved by the Member States and can therefore by
reason of the scale or effects of the action be better
achieved at Community level, the Community may
adopt measures in accordance with the principles of
subsidiarity as set out in Article 5 of the Treaty. In
accordance with the principle of proportionality, as set
out in that Article, this Directive does not go beyond
what is necessary in order to achieve those objectives.
(52) The measures necessary for the implementation of this
Directive should be adopted in accordance with Council
Decision 1999/468/EC of 28 June 1999 laying down
the procedures for the exercise of implementing powers
conferred on the Commission ( 2 ),
HAVE ADOPTED THIS DIRECTIVE:
( 1 ) OJ L 115, 17.4.1998, p. 31. ( 2 ) OJ L 184, 17.7.1999, p. 23.
CHAPTER I
SCOPE, AIMS AND DEFINITIONS
Article 1
Scope and aims
1. Within the framework of Directive 2002/21/EC
(Framework Directive), this Directive concerns the provision of
electronic communications networks and services to end-users.
The aim is to ensure the availability throughout the
Community of good quality publicly available services through
effective competition and choice and to deal with
circumstances in which the needs of end-users are not
satisfactorily met by the market.
2. This Directive establishes the rights of end-users and the
corresponding obligations on undertakings providing publicly
available electronic communications networks and services.
With regard to ensuring provision of universal service within
an environment of open and competitive markets, this
Directive defines the minimum set of services of specified
quality to which all end-users have access, at an affordable

24.4.2002 L 108/59
Official Journal of the European Communities
EN
price in the light of specific national conditions, without
distorting competition. This Directive also sets out obligations
with regard to the provision of certain mandatory services
such as the retail provision of leased lines.
Article 2
Definitions
For the purposes of this Directive, the definitions set out in
Article 2 of Directive 2002/21/EC (Framework Directive) shall
apply.
The following definitions shall also apply:
(a) ‘public pay telephone’ means a telephone available to the
general public, for the use of which the means of payment
may include coins and/or credit/debit cards and/or
pre-payment cards, including cards for use with dialling
codes;
(b) ‘public telephone network’ means an electronic
communications network which is used to provide publicly
available telephone services; it supports the transfer
between network termination points of speech
communications, and also other forms of communication,
such as facsimile and data;
(c) ‘publicly available telephone service’ means a service
available to the public for originating and receiving
national and international calls and access to emergency
services through a number or numbers in a national or
international telephone numbering plan, and in addition
may, where relevant, include one or more of the following
services: the provision of operator assistance, directory
enquiry services, directories, provision of public pay
phones, provision of service under special terms, provision
of special facilities for customers with disabilities or with
special social needs and/or the provision of
non-geographic services;
(d) ‘geographic number’ means a number from the national
numbering plan where part of its digit structure contains
geographic significance used for routing calls to the
physical location of the network termination point (NTP);
(e) ‘network termination point’ (NTP) means the physical point
at which a subscriber is provided with access to a public
communications network; in the case of networks
involving switching or routing, the NTP is identified by
means of a specific network address, which may be linked
to a subscriber number or name;
(f) ‘non-geographic numbers’ means a number from the
national numbering plan that is not a geographic number.
It includes inter alia mobile, freephone and premium rate
numbers.
CHAPTER II
UNIVERSAL SERVICE OBLIGATIONS INCLUDING SOCIAL
OBLIGATIONS
Article 3
Availability of universal service
1. Member States shall ensure that the services set out in
this Chapter are made available at the quality specified to all
end-users in their territory, independently of geographical
location, and, in the light of specific national conditions, at an
affordable price.
2. Member States shall determine the most efficient and
appropriate approach for ensuring the implementation of
universal service, whilst respecting the principles of objectivity,
transparency, non-discrimination and proportionality. They
shall seek to minimise market distortions, in particular the
provision of services at prices or subject to other terms and
conditions which depart from normal commercial conditions,
whilst safeguarding the public interest.
Article 4
Provision of access at a fixed location
1. Member States shall ensure that all reasonable requests
for connection at a fixed location to the public telephone
network and for access to publicly available telephone services
at a fixed location are met by at least one undertaking.
2. The connection provided shall be capable of allowing
end-users to make and receive local, national and international
telephone calls, facsimile communications and data
communications, at data rates that are sufficient to permit
functional Internet access, taking into account prevailing
technologies used by the majority of subscribers and
technological feasibility.
Article 5
Directory enquiry services and directories
1. Member States shall ensure that:
(a) at least one comprehensive directory is available to
end-users in a form approved by the relevant authority,
whether printed or electronic, or both, and is updated on a
regular basis, and at least once a year;

L 108/60 24.4.2002
Official Journal of the European Communities
EN
(b) at least one comprehensive telephone directory enquiry
service is available to all end-users, including users of
public pay telephones.
2. The directories in paragraph 1 shall comprise, subject to
the provisions of Article 11 of Directive 97/66/EC, all
subscribers of publicly available telephone services.
3. Member States shall ensure that the undertaking(s)
providing the services referred to in paragraph 1 apply the
principle of non-discrimination to the treatment of
information that has been provided to them by other
undertakings.
Article 6
Public pay telephones
1. Member States shall ensure that national regulatory
authorities can impose obligations on undertakings in order to
ensure that public pay telephones are provided to meet the
reasonable needs of end-users in terms of the geographical
coverage, the number of telephones, the accessibility of such
telephones to disabled users and the quality of services.
2. A Member State shall ensure that its national regulatory
authority can decide not to impose obligations under
paragraph 1 in all or part of its territory, if it is satisfied that
these facilities or comparable services are widely available, on
the basis of a consultation of interested parties as referred to in
Article 33.
3. Member States shall ensure that it is possible to make
emergency calls from public pay telephones using the single
European emergency call number ‘112’ and other national
emergency numbers, all free of charge and without having to
use any means of payment.
Article 7
Special measures for disabled users
1. Member States shall, where appropriate, take specific
measures for disabled end-users in order to ensure access to
and affordability of publicly available telephone services,
including access to emergency services, directory enquiry
services and directories, equivalent to that enjoyed by other
end-users.
2. Member States may take specific measures, in the light of
national conditions, to ensure that disabled end-users can also
take advantage of the choice of undertakings and service
providers available to the majority of end-users.
Article 8
Designation of undertakings
1. Member States may designate one or more undertakings
to guarantee the provision of universal service as identified in
Articles 4, 5, 6 and 7 and, where applicable, Article 9(2) so
that the whole of the national territory can be covered.
Member States may designate different undertakings or sets of
undertakings to provide different elements of universal service
and/or to cover different parts of the national territory.
2. When Member States designate undertakings in part or
all of the national territory as having universal service
obligations, they shall do so using an efficient, objective,
transparent and non-discriminatory designation mechanism,
whereby no undertaking is a priori excluded from being
designated. Such designation methods shall ensure that
universal service is provided in a cost-effective manner and
may be used as a means of determining the net cost of the
universal service obligation in accordance with Article 12.
Article 9
Affordability of tariffs
1. National regulatory authorities shall monitor the
evolution and level of retail tariffs of the services identified in
Articles 4, 5, 6 and 7 as falling under the universal service
obligations and provided by designated undertakings, in
particular in relation to national consumer prices and income.
2. Member States may, in the light of national conditions,
require that designated undertakings provide tariff options or
packages to consumers which depart from those provided
under normal commercial conditions, in particular to ensure
that those on low incomes or with special social needs are not
prevented from accessing or using the publicly available
telephone service.
3. Member States may, besides any provision for designated
undertakings to provide special tariff options or to comply
with price caps or geographical averaging or other similar
schemes, ensure that support is provided to consumers
identified as having low incomes or special social needs.
4. Member States may require undertakings with obligations
under Articles 4, 5, 6 and 7 to apply common tariffs,
including geographical averaging, throughout the territory, in
the light of national conditions or to comply with price caps.
5. National regulatory authorities shall ensure that, where a
designated undertaking has an obligation to provide special

24.4.2002 L 108/61
Official Journal of the European Communities
EN
tariff options, common tariffs, including geographical
averaging, or to comply with price caps, the conditions are
fully transparent and are published and applied in accordance
with the principle of non-discrimination. National regulatory
authorities may require that specific schemes be modified or
withdrawn.
Article 10
Control of expenditure
1. Member States shall ensure that designated undertakings,
in providing facilities and services additional to those referred
to in Articles 4, 5, 6, 7 and 9(2), establish terms and
conditions in such a way that the subscriber is not obliged to
pay for facilities or services which are not necessary or not
required for the service requested.
2. Member States shall ensure that designated undertakings
with obligations under Articles 4, 5, 6, 7 and 9(2) provide the
specific facilities and services set out in Annex I, Part A, in
order that subscribers can monitor and control expenditure
and avoid unwarranted disconnection of service.
3. Member States shall ensure that the relevant authority is
able to waive the requirements of paragraph 2 in all or part of
its national territory if it is satisfied that the facility is widely
available.
Article 11
Quality of service of designated undertakings
1. National regulatory authorities shall ensure that all
designated undertakings with obligations under Articles 4, 5,
6, 7 and 9(2) publish adequate and up-to-date information
concerning their performance in the provision of universal
service, based on the quality of service parameters, definitions
and measurement methods set out in Annex III. The published
information shall also be supplied to the national regulatory
authority.
2. National regulatory authorities may specify, inter alia,
additional quality of service standards, where relevant
parameters have been developed, to assess the performance of
undertakings in the provision of services to disabled end-users
and disabled consumers. National regulatory authorities shall
ensure that information concerning the performance of
undertakings in relation to these parameters is also published
and made available to the national regulatory authority.
3. National regulatory authorities may, in addition, specify
the content, form and manner of information to be published,
in order to ensure that end-users and consumers have access
to comprehensive, comparable and user-friendly information.
4. National regulatory authorities shall be able to set
performance targets for those undertakings with universal
service obligations at least under Article 4. In so doing,
national regulatory authorities shall take account of views of
interested parties, in particular as referred to in Article 33.
5. Member States shall ensure that national regulatory
authorities are able to monitor compliance with these
performance targets by designated undertakings.
6. Persistent failure by an undertaking to meet performance
targets may result in specific measures being taken in
accordance with Directive 2002/20/EC of the European
Parliament and of the Council of 7 March 2002 on the
authorisation of electronic communications networks and
services (Authorisation Directive) ( 1 ). National regulatory
authorities shall be able to order independent audits or similar
reviews of the performance data, paid for by the undertaking
concerned, in order to ensure the accuracy and comparability
of the data made available by undertakings with universal
service obligations.
Article 12
Costing of universal service obligations
1. Where national regulatory authorities consider that the
provision of universal service as set out in Articles 3 to 10
may represent an unfair burden on undertakings designated to
provide universal service, they shall calculate the net costs of
its provision.
For that purpose, national regulatory authorities shall:
(a) calculate the net cost of the universal service obligation,
taking into account any market benefit which accrues to
an undertaking designated to provide universal service, in
accordance with Annex IV, Part A; or
(b) make use of the net costs of providing universal service
identified by a designation mechanism in accordance with
Article 8(2).
2. The accounts and/or other information serving as the
basis for the calculation of the net cost of universal service
obligations under paragraph 1(a) shall be audited or verified by
( 1 ) See page 21 of this Official Journal.

L 108/62 24.4.2002
Official Journal of the European Communities
EN
the national regulatory authority or a body independent of the
relevant parties and approved by the national regulatory
authority. The results of the cost calculation and the
conclusions of the audit shall be publicly available.
Article 13
Financing of universal service obligations
1. Where, on the basis of the net cost calculation referred
to in Article 12, national regulatory authorities find that an
undertaking is subject to an unfair burden, Member States
shall, upon request from a designated undertaking, decide:
(a) to introduce a mechanism to compensate that undertaking
for the determined net costs under transparent conditions
from public funds; and/or
(b) to share the net cost of universal service obligations
between providers of electronic communications networks
and services.
2. Where the net cost is shared under paragraph 1(b),
Member States shall establish a sharing mechanism
administered by the national regulatory authority or a body
independent from the beneficiaries under the supervision of
the national regulatory authority. Only the net cost, as
determined in accordance with Article 12, of the obligations
laid down in Articles 3 to 10 may be financed.
3. A sharing mechanism shall respect the principles of
transparency, least market distortion, non-discrimination and
proportionality, in accordance with the principles of Annex IV,
Part B. Member States may choose not to require contributions
from undertakings whose national turnover is less than a set
limit.
4. Any charges related to the sharing of the cost of
universal service obligations shall be unbundled and identified
separately for each undertaking. Such charges shall not be
imposed or collected from undertakings that are not providing
services in the territory of the Member State that has
established the sharing mechanism.
Article 14
Transparency
1. Where a mechanism for sharing the net cost of universal
service obligations as referred to in Article 13 is established,
national regulatory authorities shall ensure that the principles
for cost sharing, and details of the mechanism used, are
publicly available.
2. Subject to Community and national rules on business
confidentiality, national regulatory authorities shall ensure that
an annual report is published giving the calculated cost of
universal service obligations, identifying the contributions
made by all the undertakings involved, and identifying any
market benefits, that may have accrued to the undertaking(s)
designated to provide universal service, where a fund is
actually in place and working.
Article 15
Review of the scope of universal service
1. The Commission shall periodically review the scope of
universal service, in particular with a view to proposing to the
European Parliament and the Council that the scope be
changed or redefined. A review shall be carried out, on the
first occasion within two years after the date of application
referred to in Article 38(1), second subparagraph, and
subsequently every three years.
2. This review shall be undertaken in the light of social,
economic and technological developments, taking into
account, inter alia, mobility and data rates in the light of the
prevailing technologies used by the majority of subscribers.
The review process shall be undertaken in accordance with
Annex V. The Commission shall submit a report to the
European Parliament and the Council regarding the outcome
of the review.
CHAPTER III
REGULATORY CONTROLS ON UNDERTAKINGS WITH
SIGNIFICANT MARKET POWER IN SPECIFIC MARKETS
Article 16
Review of obligations
1. Member States shall maintain all obligations relating to:
(a) retail tariffs for the provision of access to and use of the
public telephone network, imposed under Article 17 of
Directive 98/10/EC of the European Parliament and of the
Council of 26 February 1998 on the application of open
network provision (ONP) to voice telephony and on
universal service for telecommunications in a competitive
environment ( 1 );
(b) carrier selection or pre-selection, imposed under Directive
97/33/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council
of 30 June 1997 on interconnection in
telecommunications with regard to ensuring universal
( 1 ) OJ L 101, 1.4.1998, p. 24.

24.4.2002 L 108/63
Official Journal of the European Communities
EN
service and interoperability through application of the
principles of open network provision (ONP) ( 1 );
(c) leased lines, imposed under Articles 3, 4, 6, 7, 8 and 10 of
Directive 92/44/EEC,
until a review has been carried out and a determination made
in accordance with the procedure in paragraph 3 of this
Article.
2. The Commission shall indicate relevant markets for the
obligations relating to retail markets in the initial
recommendation on relevant product and service markets and
the Decision identifying transnational markets to be adopted in
accordance with Article 15 of Directive 2002/21/EC
(Framework Directive).
3. Member States shall ensure that, as soon as possible after
the entry into force of this Directive, and periodically
thereafter, national regulatory authorities undertake a market
analysis, in accordance with the procedure set out in Article
16 of Directive 2002/21/EC (Framework Directive) to
determine whether to maintain, amend or withdraw the
obligations relating to retail markets. Measures taken shall be
subject to the procedure referred to in Article 7 of Directive
2002/21/EC (Framework Directive).
Article 17
Regulatory controls on retail services
1. Member States shall ensure that, where:
(a) as a result of a market analysis carried out in accordance
with Article 16(3) a national regulatory authority
determines that a given retail market identified in
accordance with Article 15 of Directive 2002/21/EC
(Framework Directive) is not effectively competitive, and
(b) the national regulatory authority concludes that obligations
imposed under Directive 2002/19/EC (Access Directive), or
Article 19 of this Directive would not result in the
achievement of the objectives set out in Article 8 of
Directive 2002/21/EC (Framework Directive),
national regulatory authorities shall impose appropriate
regulatory obligations on undertakings identified as having
significant market power on a given retail market in
accordance with Article 14 of Directive 2002/21/EC
(Framework Directive).
2. Obligations imposed under paragraph 1 shall be based
on the nature of the problem identified and be proportionate
( 1 ) OJ L 199, 26.7.1997, p. 32. Directive as amended by Directive
98/61/EC (OJ L 268, 3.10.1998, p. 37).
and justified in the light of the objectives laid down in Article
8 of Directive 2002/21/EC (Framework Directive). The
obligations imposed may include requirements that the
identified undertakings do not charge excessive prices, inhibit
market entry or restrict competition by setting predatory
prices, show undue preference to specific end-users or
unreasonably bundle services. National regulatory authorities
may apply to such undertakings appropriate retail price cap
measures, measures to control individual tariffs, or measures to
orient tariffs towards costs or prices on comparable markets,
in order to protect end-user interests whilst promoting
effective competition.
3. National regulatory authorities shall, on request, submit
information to the Commission concerning the retail controls
applied and, where appropriate, the cost accounting systems
used by the undertakings concerned.
4. National regulatory authorities shall ensure that, where
an undertaking is subject to retail tariff regulation or other
relevant retail controls, the necessary and appropriate cost
accounting systems are implemented. National regulatory
authorities may specify the format and accounting
methodology to be used. Compliance with the cost accounting
system shall be verified by a qualified independent body.
National regulatory authorities shall ensure that a statement
concerning compliance is published annually.
5. Without prejudice to Article 9(2) and Article 10, national
regulatory authorities shall not apply retail control mechanisms
under paragraph 1 of this Article to geographical or user
markets where they are satisfied that there is effective
competition.
Article 18
Regulatory controls on the minimum set of leased lines
1. Where, as a result of the market analysis carried out in
accordance with Article 16(3), a national regulatory authority
determines that the market for the provision of part or all of
the minimum set of leased lines is not effectively competitive,
it shall identify undertakings with significant market power in
the provision of those specific elements of the minimum set of
leased lines services in all or part of its territory in accordance
with Article 14 of Directive 2002/21/EC (Framework
Directive). The national regulatory authority shall impose
obligations regarding the provision of the minimum set of
leased lines, as identified in the list of standards published in
the Official Journal of the European Communities in accordance
with Article 17 of Directive 2002/21/EC (Framework
Directive), and the conditions for such provision set out in

L 108/64 24.4.2002
Official Journal of the European Communities
EN
Annex VII to this Directive, on such undertakings in relation
to those specific leased line markets.
2. Where as a result of the market analysis carried out in
accordance with Article 16(3), a national regulatory authority
determines that a relevant market for the provision of leased
lines in the minimum set is effectively competitive, it shall
withdraw the obligations referred to in paragraph 1 in relation
to this specific leased line market.
3. The minimum set of leased lines with harmonised
characteristics, and associated standards, shall be published in
the Official Journal of the European Communities as part of the
list of standards referred to in Article 17 of Directive
2002/21/EC (Framework Directive). The Commission may
adopt amendments necessary to adapt the minimum set of
leased lines to new technical developments and to changes in
market demand, including the possible deletion of certain
types of leased line from the minimum set, acting in
accordance with the procedure referred to in Article 37(2) of
this Directive.
Article 19
Carrier selection and carrier pre-selection
1. National regulatory authorities shall require undertakings
notified as having significant market power for the provision
of connection to and use of the public telephone network at a
fixed location in accordance with Article 16(3) to enable their
subscribers to access the services of any interconnected
provider of publicly available telephone services:
(a) on a call-by-call basis by dialling a carrier selection code;
and
(b) by means of pre-selection, with a facility to override any
pre-selected choice on a call-by-call basis by dialling a
carrier selection code.
2. User requirements for these facilities to be implemented
on other networks or in other ways shall be assessed in
accordance with the market analysis procedure laid down in
Article 16 of Directive 2002/21/EC (Framework Directive) and
implemented in accordance with Article 12 of Directive
2002/19/EC (Access Directive).
3. National regulatory authorities shall ensure that pricing
for access and interconnection related to the provision of the
facilities in paragraph 1 is cost oriented and that direct charges
to subscribers, if any, do not act as a disincentive for the use
of these facilities.
CHAPTER IV
END-USER INTERESTS AND RIGHTS
Article 20
Contracts
1. Paragraphs 2, 3 and 4 apply without prejudice to
Community rules on consumer protection, in particular
Directives 97/7/EC and 93/13/EC, and national rules in
conformity with Community law.
2. Member States shall ensure that, where subscribing to
services providing connection and/or access to the public
telephone network, consumers have a right to a contract with
an undertaking or undertakings providing such services. The
contract shall specify at least:
(a) the identity and address of the supplier;
(b) services provided, the service quality levels offered, as well
as the time for the initial connection;
(c) the types of maintenance service offered;
(d) particulars of prices and tariffs and the means by which
up-to-date information on all applicable tariffs and
maintenance charges may be obtained;
(e) the duration of the contract, the conditions for renewal
and termination of services and of the contract;
(f) any compensation and the refund arrangements which
apply if contracted service quality levels are not met; and
(g) the method of initiating procedures for settlement of
disputes in accordance with Article 34.
Member States may extend these obligations to cover other
end-users.
3. Where contracts are concluded between consumers and
electronic communications services providers other than those
providing connection and/or access to the public telephone
network, the information in paragraph 2 shall also be included
in such contracts. Member States may extend this obligation to
cover other end-users.
4. Subscribers shall have a right to withdraw from their
contracts without penalty upon notice of proposed
modifications in the contractual conditions. Subscribers shall
be given adequate notice, not shorter than one month, ahead

24.4.2002 L 108/65
Official Journal of the European Communities
EN
of any such modifications and shall be informed at the same
time of their right to withdraw, without penalty, from such
contracts, if they do not accept the new conditions.
Article 21
Transparency and publication of information
1. Member States shall ensure that transparent and
up-to-date information on applicable prices and tariffs, and on
standard terms and conditions, in respect of access to and use
of publicly available telephone services is available to end-users
and consumers, in accordance with the provisions of Annex II.
2. National regulatory authorities shall encourage the
provision of information to enable end-users, as far as
appropriate, and consumers to make an independent
evaluation of the cost of alternative usage patterns, by means
of, for instance, interactive guides.
Article 22
Quality of service
1. Member States shall ensure that national regulatory
authorities are, after taking account of the views of interested
parties, able to require undertakings that provide publicly
available electronic communications services to publish
comparable, adequate and up-to-date information for end-users
on the quality of their services. The information shall, on
request, also be supplied to the national regulatory authority in
advance of its publication.
2. National regulatory authorities may specify, inter alia, the
quality of service parameters to be measured, and the content,
form and manner of information to be published, in order to
ensure that end-users have access to comprehensive,
comparable and user-friendly information. Where appropriate,
the parameters, definitions and measurement methods given in
Annex III could be used.
Article 23
Integrity of the network
Member States shall take all necessary steps to ensure the
integrity of the public telephone network at fixed locations
and, in the event of catastrophic network breakdown or in
cases of force majeure, the availability of the public telephone
network and publicly available telephone services at fixed
locations. Member States shall ensure that undertakings
providing publicly available telephone services at fixed
locations take all reasonable steps to ensure uninterrupted
access to emergency services.
Article 24
Interoperability of consumer digital television equipment
In accordance with the provisions of Annex VI, Member States
shall ensure the interoperability of the consumer digital
television equipment referred to therein.
Article 25
Operator assistance and directory enquiry services
1. Member States shall ensure that subscribers to publicly
available telephone services have the right to have an entry in
the publicly available directory referred to in Article 5(1)(a).
2. Member States shall ensure that all undertakings which
assign telephone numbers to subscribers meet all reasonable
requests to make available, for the purposes of the provision of
publicly available directory enquiry services and directories, the
relevant information in an agreed format on terms which are
fair, objective, cost oriented and non-discriminatory.
3. Member States shall ensure that all end-users provided
with a connection to the public telephone network can access
operator assistance services and directory enquiry services in
accordance with Article 5(1)(b).
4. Member States shall not maintain any regulatory
restrictions which prevent end-users in one Member State from
accessing directly the directory enquiry service in another
Member State.
5. Paragraphs 1, 2, 3 and 4 apply subject to the
requirements of Community legislation on the protection of
personal data and privacy and, in particular, Article 11 of
Directive 97/66/EC.
Article 26
Single European emergency call number
1. Member States shall ensure that, in addition to any other
national emergency call numbers specified by the national
regulatory authorities, all end-users of publicly available
telephone services, including users of public pay telephones,
are able to call the emergency services free of charge, by using
the single European emergency call number ‘112’.
2. Member States shall ensure that calls to the single
European emergency call number ‘112’ are appropriately
answered and handled in a manner best suited to the national
organisation of emergency systems and within the
technological possibilities of the networks.

L 108/66 24.4.2002
Official Journal of the European Communities
EN
3. Member States shall ensure that undertakings which
operate public telephone networks make caller location
information available to authorities handling emergencies, to
the extent technically feasible, for all calls to the single
European emergency call number ‘112’.
4. Member States shall ensure that citizens are adequately
informed about the existence and use of the single European
emergency call number ‘112’.
Article 27
European telephone access codes
1. Member States shall ensure that the ‘00’ code is the
standard international access code. Special arrangements for
making calls between adjacent locations across borders
between Member States may be established or continued. The
end-users of publicly available telephone services in the
locations concerned shall be fully informed of such
arrangements.
2. Member States shall ensure that all undertakings that
operate public telephone networks handle all calls to the
European telephony numbering space, without prejudice to the
need for an undertaking that operates a public telephone
network to recover the cost of the conveyance of calls on its
network.
Article 28
Non-geographic numbers
Member States shall ensure that end-users from other Member
States are able to access non-geographic numbers within their
territory where technically and economically feasible, except
where a called subscriber has chosen for commercial reasons
to limit access by calling parties located in specific
geographical areas.
Article 29
Provision of additional facilities
1. Member States shall ensure that national regulatory
authorities are able to require all undertakings that operate
public telephone networks to make available to end-users the
facilities listed in Annex I, Part B, subject to technical feasibility
and economic viability.
2. A Member State may decide to waive paragraph 1 in all
or part of its territory if it considers, after taking into account
the views of interested parties, that there is sufficient access to
these facilities.
3. Without prejudice to Article 10(2), Member States may
impose the obligations in Annex I, Part A, point (e),
concerning disconnection as a general requirement on all
undertakings.
Article 30
Number portability
1. Member States shall ensure that all subscribers of
publicly available telephone services, including mobile services,
who so request can retain their number(s) independently of the
undertaking providing the service:
(a) in the case of geographic numbers, at a specific location;
and
(b) in the case of non-geographic numbers, at any location.
This paragraph does not apply to the porting of numbers
between networks providing services at a fixed location and
mobile networks.
2. National regulatory authorities shall ensure that pricing
for interconnection related to the provision of number
portability is cost oriented and that direct charges to
subscribers, if any, do not act as a disincentive for the use of
these facilities.
3. National regulatory authorities shall not impose retail
tariffs for the porting of numbers in a manner that would
distort competition, such as by setting specific or common
retail tariffs.
Article 31
‘Must carry’ obligations
1. Member States may impose reasonable ‘must carry’
obligations, for the transmission of specified radio and
television broadcast channels and services, on undertakings
under their jurisdiction providing electronic communications
networks used for the distribution of radio or television
broadcasts to the public where a significant number of
end-users of such networks use them as their principal means
to receive radio and television broadcasts. Such obligations
shall only be imposed where they are necessary to meet clearly
defined general interest objectives and shall be proportionate
and transparent. The obligations shall be subject to periodical
review.
2. Neither paragraph 1 of this Article nor Article 3(2) of
Directive 2002/19/EC (Access Directive) shall prejudice the
ability of Member States to determine appropriate
remuneration, if any, in respect of measures taken in
accordance with this Article while ensuring that, in similar

24.4.2002 L 108/67
Official Journal of the European Communities
EN
circumstances, there is no discrimination in the treatment of
undertakings providing electronic communications networks.
Where remuneration is provided for, Member States shall
ensure that it is applied in a proportionate and transparent
manner.
CHAPTER V
GENERAL AND FINAL PROVISIONS
Article 32
Additional mandatory services
Member States may decide to make additional services, apart
from services within the universal service obligations as
defined in Chapter II, publicly available in its own territory
but, in such circumstances, no compensation mechanism
involving specific undertakings may be imposed.
Article 33
Consultation with interested parties
1. Member States shall ensure as far as appropriate that
national regulatory authorities take account of the views of
end-users, and consumers (including, in particular, disabled
users), manufacturers, undertakings that provide electronic
communications networks and/or services on issues related to
all end-user and consumer rights concerning publicly available
electronic communications services, in particular where they
have a significant impact on the market.
2. Where appropriate, interested parties may develop, with
the guidance of national regulatory authorities, mechanisms,
involving consumers, user groups and service providers, to
improve the general quality of service provision by, inter alia,
developing and monitoring codes of conduct and operating
standards.
Article 34
Out-of-court dispute resolution
1. Member States shall ensure that transparent, simple and
inexpensive out-of-court procedures are available for dealing
with unresolved disputes, involving consumers, relating to
issues covered by this Directive. Member States shall adopt
measures to ensure that such procedures enable disputes to be
settled fairly and promptly and may, where warranted, adopt a
system of reimbursement and/or compensation. Member States
may extend these obligations to cover disputes involving other
end-users.
2. Member States shall ensure that their legislation does not
hamper the establishment of complaints offices and the
provision of on-line services at the appropriate territorial level
to facilitate access to dispute resolution by consumers and
end-users.
3. Where such disputes involve parties in different Member
States, Member States shall coordinate their efforts with a view
to bringing about a resolution of the dispute.
4. This Article is without prejudice to national court
procedures.
Article 35
Technical adjustment
Amendments necessary to adapt Annexes I, II, III, VI and VII
to technological developments or to changes in market
demand shall be adopted by the Commission, acting in
accordance with the procedure referred to in Article 37(2).
Article 36
Notification, monitoring and review procedures
1. National regulatory authorities shall notify to the
Commission by at the latest the date of application referred to
in Article 38(1), second subparagraph, and immediately in the
event of any change thereafter in the names of undertakings
designated as having universal service obligations under Article
8(1).
The Commission shall make the information available in a
readily accessible form, and shall distribute it to the
Communications Committee referred to in Article 37.
2. National regulatory authorities shall notify to the
Commission the names of operators deemed to have
significant market power for the purposes of this Directive,
and the obligations imposed upon them under this Directive.
Any changes affecting the obligations imposed upon
undertakings or of the undertakings affected under the
provisions of this Directive shall be notified to the
Commission without delay.
3. The Commission shall periodically review the functioning
of this Directive and report to the European Parliament and to
the Council, on the first occasion not later than three years

L 108/68 24.4.2002
Official Journal of the European Communities
EN
after the date of application referred to in Article 38(1), second
subparagraph. The Member States and national regulatory
authorities shall supply the necessary information to the
Commission for this purpose.
Article 37
Committee
1. The Commission shall be assisted by the
Communications Committee, set up by Article 22 of Directive
2002/21/EC (Framework Directive).
2. Where reference is made to this paragraph, Articles 5
and 7 of Decision 1999/468/EC shall apply, having regard to
the provisions of Article 8 thereof.
The period laid down in Article 5(6) of Decision 1999/468/EC
shall be three months.
3. The Committee shall adopt its rules of procedure.
Article 38
Transposition
1. Member States shall adopt and publish the laws,
regulations and administrative provisions necessary to comply
with this Directive by 24 July 2003 at the latest. They shall
forthwith inform the Commission thereof.
They shall apply those measures from 25 July 2003.
2. When Member States adopt these measures, they shall
contain a reference to this Directive or be accompanied by
such a reference on the occasion of their official publication.
The methods of making such a reference shall be laid down by
the Member States.
3. Member States shall communicate to the Commission the
text of the provisions of national law which they adopt in the
field governed by this Directive and of any subsequent
modifications to those provisions.
Article 39
Entry into force
This Directive shall enter into force on the day of its
publication in the Official Journal of the European Communities.
Article 40
Addressees
This Directive is addressed to the Member States.
Done at Brussels, 7 March 2002.
For the European Parliament
The President
P. COX
For the Council
The President
J. C. APARICIO

24.4.2002 L 108/69
Official Journal of the European Communities
EN
ANNEX I
DESCRIPTION OF FACILITIES AND SERVICES REFERRED TO IN ARTICLE 10 (CONTROL OF
EXPENDITURE) AND ARTICLE 29 (ADDITIONAL FACILITIES)
(a) Itemised billing
Part A: Facilities and services referred to in Article 10
Member States are to ensure that national regulatory authorities, subject to the requirements of relevant legislation
on the protection of personal data and privacy, may lay down the basic level of itemised bills which are to be
provided by designated undertakings (as established in Article 8) to consumers free of charge in order that they
can:
(i) allow verification and control of the charges incurred in using the public telephone network at a fixed location
and/or related publicly available telephone services, and
(ii) adequately monitor their usage and expenditure and thereby exercise a reasonable degree of control over their
bills.
Where appropriate, additional levels of detail may be offered to subscribers at reasonable tariffs or at no charge.
Calls which are free of charge to the calling subscriber, including calls to helplines, are not to be identified in the
calling subscriber's itemised bill.
(b) Selective call barring for outgoing calls, free of charge
I.e. the facility whereby the subscriber can, on request to the telephone service provider, bar outgoing calls of
defined types or to defined types of numbers free of charge.
(c) Pre-payment systems
Member States are to ensure that national regulatory authorities may require designated undertakings to provide
means for consumers to pay for access to the public telephone network and use of publicly available telephone
services on pre-paid terms.
(d) Phased payment of connection fees
Member States are to ensure that national regulatory authorities may require designated undertakings to allow
consumers to pay for connection to the public telephone network on the basis of payments phased over time.
(e) Non-payment of bills
Member States are to authorise specified measures, which are to be proportionate, non-discriminatory and
published, to cover non-payment of telephone bills for use of the public telephone network at fixed locations.
These measures are to ensure that due warning of any consequent service interruption or disconnection is given to
the subscriber beforehand. Except in cases of fraud, persistent late payment or non-payment, these measures are to
ensure, as far as is technically feasible, that any service interruption is confined to the service concerned.
Disconnection for non-payment of bills should take place only after due warning is given to the subscriber.
Member States may allow a period of limited service prior to complete disconnection, during which only calls that
do not incur a charge to the subscriber (e.g. ‘112’ calls) are permitted.
Part B: List of facilities referred to in Article 29
(a) Tone dialling or DTMF (dual-tone multi-frequency operation)
I.e. the public telephone network supports the use of DTMF tones as defined in ETSI ETR 207 for end-to-end
signalling throughout the network both within a Member State and between Member States.

L 108/70 24.4.2002
Official Journal of the European Communities
EN
(b) Calling-line identification
I.e. the calling party's number is presented to the called party prior to the call being established.
This facility should be provided in accordance with relevant legislation on protection of personal data and privacy,
in particular Directive 97/66/EC.
To the extent technically feasible, operators should provide data and signals to facilitate the offering of calling-line
identity and tone dialling across Member State boundaries.

24.4.2002 L 108/71
Official Journal of the European Communities
EN
ANNEX II
INFORMATION TO BE PUBLISHED IN ACCORDANCE WITH ARTICLE 21
(TRANSPARENCY AND PUBLICATION OF INFORMATION)
The national regulatory authority has a responsibility to ensure that the information in this Annex is published, in
accordance with Article 21. It is for the national regulatory authority to decide which information is to be published by
the undertakings providing public telephone networks and/or publicly available telephone services and which
information is to be published by the national regulatory authority itself, so as to ensure that consumers are able to
make informed choices.
1. Name(s) and address(es) of undertaking(s)
I.e. names and head office addresses of undertakings providing public telephone networks and/or publicly
available telephone services.
2. Publicly available telephone services offered
2.1. Scope of the publicly available telephone service
Description of the publicly available telephone services offered, indicating what is included in the subscription
charge and the periodic rental charge (e.g. operator services, directories, directory enquiry services, selective call
barring, itemised billing, maintenance, etc.).
2.2. Standard tariffs covering access, all types of usage charges, maintenance, and including details of standard
discounts applied and special and targeted tariff schemes.
2.3. Compensation/refund policy, including specific details of any compensation/refund schemes offered.
2.4. Types of maintenance service offered.
2.5. Standard contract conditions, including any minimum contractual period, if relevant.
3. Dispute settlement mechanisms including those developed by the undertaking.
4. Information about rights as regards universal service, including the facilities and services mentioned in Annex I.

L 108/72 24.4.2002
Official Journal of the European Communities
EN
ANNEX III
QUALITY OF SERVICE PARAMETERS
Supply-time and quality-of-service parameters, definitions and measurement methods referred to
Articles 11 and 22
Parameter ( 1 ) Definition Measurement method
Supply time for initial connection ETSI EG 201 769-1 ETSI EG 201 769-1
Fault rate per access line ETSI EG 201 769-1 ETSI EG 201 769-1
Fault repair time ETSI EG 201 769-1 ETSI EG 201 769-1
Unsuccessful call ratio ( 2 ) ETSI EG 201 769-1 ETSI EG 201 769-1
Call set up time ( 2 ) ETSI EG 201 769-1 ETSI EG 201 769-1
Response times for operator services ETSI EG 201 769-1 ETSI EG 201 769-1
Response times for directory enquiry services ETSI EG 201 769-1 ETSI EG 201 769-1
Proportion of coin and card operated public pay
telephones in working order
ETSI EG 201 769-1 ETSI EG 201 769-1
Bill correctness complaints ETSI EG 201 769-1 ETSI EG 201 769-1
( 1 ) Parameters should allow for performance to be analysed at a regional level (i.e. no less than Level 2 in the Nomenclature of
Territorial Units for Statistics (NUTS) established by Eurostat).
( 2 ) Member States may decide not to require that up-to-date information concerning the performance for these two parameters be kept,
if evidence is available to show that performance in these two areas is satisfactory.
Note: Version number of ETSI EG 201 769-1 is 1.1.1 (April 2000).

24.4.2002 L 108/73
Official Journal of the European Communities
EN
ANNEX IV
CALCULATING THE NET COST, IF ANY, OF UNIVERSAL SERVICE OBLIGATIONS AND ESTABLISHING
ANY RECOVERY OR SHARING MECHANISM IN ACCORDANCE WITH ARTICLES 12 AND 13
Part A: Calculation of net cost
Universal service obligations refer to those obligations placed upon an undertaking by a Member State which concern
the provision of a network and service throughout a specified geographical area, including, where required, averaged
prices in that geographical area for the provision of that service or provision of specific tariff options for consumers
with low incomes or with special social needs.
National regulatory authorities are to consider all means to ensure appropriate incentives for undertakings (designated
or not) to provide universal service obligations cost efficiently. In undertaking a calculation exercise, the net cost of
universal service obligations is to be calculated as the difference between the net cost for a designated undertaking of
operating with the universal service obligations and operating without the universal service obligations. This applies
whether the network in a particular Member State is fully developed or is still undergoing development and expansion.
Due attention is to be given to correctly assessing the costs that any designated undertaking would have chosen to
avoid had there been no universal service obligation. The net cost calculation should assess the benefits, including
intangible benefits, to the universal service operator.
The calculation is to be based upon the costs attributable to:
(i) elements of the identified services which can only be provided at a loss or provided under cost conditions falling
outside normal commercial standards.
This category may include service elements such as access to emergency telephone services, provision of certain
public pay telephones, provision of certain services or equipment for disabled people, etc;
(ii) specific end-users or groups of end-users who, taking into account the cost of providing the specified network and
service, the revenue generated and any geographical averaging of prices imposed by the Member State, can only be
served at a loss or under cost conditions falling outside normal commercial standards.
This category includes those end-users or groups of end-users which would not be served by a commercial
operator which did not have an obligation to provide universal service.
The calculation of the net cost of specific aspects of universal service obligations is to be made separately and so as to
avoid the double counting of any direct or indirect benefits and costs. The overall net cost of universal service
obligations to any undertaking is to be calculated as the sum of the net costs arising from the specific components of
universal service obligations, taking account of any intangible benefits. The responsibility for verifying the net cost lies
with the national regulatory authority.
Part B: Recovery of any net costs of universal service obligations
The recovery or financing of any net costs of universal service obligations requires designated undertakings with
universal service obligations to be compensated for the services they provide under non-commercial conditions.
Because such a compensation involves financial transfers, Member States are to ensure that these are undertaken in an
objective, transparent, non-discriminatory and proportionate manner. This means that the transfers result in the least
distortion to competition and to user demand.
In accordance with Article 13(3), a sharing mechanism based on a fund should use a transparent and neutral means for
collecting contributions that avoids the danger of a double imposition of contributions falling on both outputs and
inputs of undertakings.
The independent body administering the fund is to be responsible for collecting contributions from undertakings which
are assessed as liable to contribute to the net cost of universal service obligations in the Member State and is to oversee
the transfer of sums due and/or administrative payments to the undertakings entitled to receive payments from the
fund.

L 108/74 24.4.2002
Official Journal of the European Communities
EN
ANNEX V
PROCESS FOR REVIEWING THE SCOPE OF UNIVERSAL SERVICE IN ACCORDANCE WITH ARTICLE 15
In considering whether a review of the scope of universal service obligations should be undertaken, the Commission is
to take into consideration the following elements:
— social and market developments in terms of the services used by consumers,
— social and market developments in terms of the availability and choice of services to consumers,
— technological developments in terms of the way services are provided to consumers.
In considering whether the scope of universal service obligations be changed or redefined, the Commission is to take
into consideration the following elements:
— are specific services available to and used by a majority of consumers and does the lack of availability or non-use
by a minority of consumers result in social exclusion, and
— does the availability and use of specific services convey a general net benefit to all consumers such that public
intervention is warranted in circumstances where the specific services are not provided to the public under normal
commercial circumstances?

24.4.2002 L 108/75
Official Journal of the European Communities
EN
ANNEX VI
INTEROPERABILITY OF DIGITAL CONSUMER EQUIPMENT REFERRED TO IN ARTICLE 24
1. The common scrambling algorithm and free-to-air reception
All consumer equipment intended for the reception of digital television signals, for sale or rent or otherwise made
available in the Community, capable of descrambling digital television signals, is to possess the capability to:
— allow the descrambling of such signals according to the common European scrambling algorithm as
administered by a recognised European standards organisation, currently ETSI;
— display signals that have been transmitted in clear provided that, in the event that such equipment is rented,
the rentee is in compliance with the relevant rental agreement.
2. Interoperability for analogue and digital television sets
Any analogue television set with an integral screen of visible diagonal greater than 42 cm which is put on the
market for sale or rent in the Community is to be fitted with at least one open interface socket, as standardised by
a recognised European standards organisation, e.g. as given in the CENELEC EN 50 049-1:1997 standard,
permitting simple connection of peripherals, especially additional decoders and digital receivers.
Any digital television set with an integral screen of visible diagonal greater than 30 cm which is put on the market
for sale or rent in the Community is to be fitted with at least one open interface socket (either standardised by, or
conforming to a standard adopted by, a recognised European standards organisation, or conforming to an
industry-wide specification) e.g. the DVB common interface connector, permitting simple connection of
peripherals, and able to pass all the elements of a digital television signal, including information relating to
interactive and conditionally accessed services.

L 108/76 24.4.2002
Official Journal of the European Communities
EN
ANNEX VII
CONDITIONS FOR THE MINIMUM SET OF LEASED LINES REFERRED TO IN ARTICLE 18
Note: In accordance with the procedure in Article 18, provision of the minimum set of leased lines under the
conditions established by Directive 92/44/EC should continue until such time as the national regulatory
authority determines that there is effective competition in the relevant leased lines market.
National regulatory authorities are to ensure that provision of the minimum set of leased lines referred to in Article 18
follows the basic principles of non-discrimination, cost orientation and transparency.
1. Non discrimination
National regulatory authorities are to ensure that the organisations identified as having significant market power
pursuant to Article 18(1) adhere to the principle of non-discrimination when providing leased lines referred to
in Article 18. Those organisations are to apply similar conditions in similar circumstances to organisations
providing similar services, and are to provide leased lines to others under the same conditions and of the same
quality as they provide for their own services, or those of their subsidiaries or partners, where applicable.
2. Cost orientation
National regulatory authorities are, where appropriate, to ensure that tariffs for leased lines referred to in Article
18 follow the basic principles of cost orientation.
To this end, national regulatory authorities are to ensure that undertakings identified as having significant
market power pursuant to Article 18(1) formulate and put in practice a suitable cost accounting system.
National regulatory authorities are to keep available, with an adequate level of detail, information on the cost
accounting systems applied by such undertakings. They are to submit this information to the Commission on
request.
3. Transparency
National regulatory authorities are to ensure that the following information in respect of the minimum set of
leased lines referred to in Article 18 is published in an easily accessible form.
3.1. Technical characteristics, including the physical and electrical characteristics as well as the detailed technical and
performance specifications which apply at the network termination point.
3.2. Tariffs, including the initial connection charges, the periodic rental charges and other charges. Where tariffs are
differentiated, this must be indicated.
Where, in response to a particular request, an organisation identified as having significant market power
pursuant to Article 18(1) considers it unreasonable to provide a leased line in the minimum set under its
published tariffs and supply conditions, it must seek the agreement of the national regulatory authority to vary
those conditions in that case.
3.3. Supply conditions, including at least the following elements:
— information concerning the ordering procedure,
— the typical delivery period, which is the period, counted from the date when the user has made a firm
request for a leased line, in which 95 % of all leased lines of the same type have been put through to the
customers.
This period will be established on the basis of the actual delivery periods of leased lines during a recent
time interval of reasonable duration. The calculation must not include cases where late delivery periods
were requested by users,

24.4.2002 L 108/77
Official Journal of the European Communities
EN
— the contractual period, which includes the period which is in general laid down in the contract and the
minimum contractual period which the user is obliged to accept,
— the typical repair time, which is the period, counted from the time when a failure message has been given
to the responsible unit within the undertaking identified as having significant market power pursuant to
Article 18(1) up to the moment in which 80 % of all leased lines of the same type have been re-established
and in appropriate cases notified back in operation to the users. Where different classes of quality of repair
are offered for the same type of leased lines, the different typical repair times shall be published,
— any refund procedure.
In addition where a Member State considers that the achieved performance for the provision of the minimum
set of leased lines does not meet users' needs, it may define appropriate targets for the supply conditions listed
above.

31.7.2002 EN
Official Journal of the European Communities
L 201/37
DIRECTIVE 2002/58/EC OF THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND OF THE COUNCIL
of 12 July 2002
concerning the processing of personal data and the protection of privacy in the electronic communications
sector (Directive on privacy and electronic communications)
THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND THE COUNCIL OF THE
EUROPEAN UNION,
Having regard to the Treaty establishing the European Community,
and in particular Article 95 thereof,
Having regard to the proposal from the Commission ( 1 ),
Having regard to the opinion of the Economic and Social
Committee ( 2 ),
Having consulted the Committee of the Regions,
Acting in accordance with the procedure laid down in Article
251 of the Treaty ( 3 ),
Whereas:
(1) Directive 95/46/EC of the European Parliament and of
the Council of 24 October 1995 on the protection of
individuals with regard to the processing of personal
data and on the free movement of such data ( 4 ) requires
Member States to ensure the rights and freedoms of
natural persons with regard to the processing of personal
data, and in particular their right to privacy, in order to
ensure the free flow of personal data in the Community.
(2) This Directive seeks to respect the fundamental rights
and observes the principles recognised in particular by
the Charter of fundamental rights of the European
Union. In particular, this Directive seeks to ensure full
respect for the rights set out in Articles 7 and 8 of that
Charter.
(3) Confidentiality of communications is guaranteed in
accordance with the international instruments relating to
human rights, in particular the European Convention for
the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms,
and the constitutions of the Member States.
(4) Directive 97/66/EC of the European Parliament and of
the Council of 15 December 1997 concerning the
processing of personal data and the protection of privacy
in the telecommunications sector ( 5 ) translated the principles
set out in Directive 95/46/EC into specific rules for
the telecommunications sector. Directive 97/66/EC has
to be adapted to developments in the markets and technologies
for electronic communications services in order
to provide an equal level of protection of personal data
( 1 ) OJ C 365 E, 19.12.2000, p. 223.
( 2 ) OJ C 123, 25.4.2001, p. 53.
( 3 ) Opinion of the European Parliament of 13 November 2001 (not yet
published in the Official Journal), Council Common Position of 28
January 2002 (OJ C 113 E, 14.5.2002, p. 39) and Decision of the
European Parliament of 30 May 2002 (not yet published in the Official
Journal). Council Decision of 25 June 2002.
( 4 ) OJ L 281, 23.11.1995, p. 31.
( 5 ) OJ L 24, 30.1.1998, p. 1.
and privacy for users of publicly available electronic
communications services, regardless of the technologies
used. That Directive should therefore be repealed and
replaced by this Directive.
(5) New advanced digital technologies are currently being
introduced in public communications networks in the
Community, which give rise to specific requirements
concerning the protection of personal data and privacy
of the user. The development of the information society
is characterised by the introduction of new electronic
communications services. Access to digital mobile
networks has become available and affordable for a large
public. These digital networks have large capacities and
possibilities for processing personal data. The successful
cross-border development of these services is partly
dependent on the confidence of users that their privacy
will not be at risk.
(6) The Internet is overturning traditional market structures
by providing a common, global infrastructure for the
delivery of a wide range of electronic communications
services. Publicly available electronic communications
services over the Internet open new possibilities for users
but also new risks for their personal data and privacy.
(7) In the case of public communications networks, specific
legal, regulatory and technical provisions should be made
in order to protect fundamental rights and freedoms of
natural persons and legitimate interests of legal persons,
in particular with regard to the increasing capacity for
automated storage and processing of data relating to
subscribers and users.
(8) Legal, regulatory and technical provisions adopted by the
Member States concerning the protection of personal
data, privacy and the legitimate interest of legal persons,
in the electronic communication sector, should be
harmonised in order to avoid obstacles to the internal
market for electronic communication in accordance with
Article 14 of the Treaty. Harmonisation should be
limited to requirements necessary to guarantee that the
promotion and development of new electronic communications
services and networks between Member States
are not hindered.

L 201/38 Official Journal of the European Communities
EN
(9) The Member States, providers and users concerned,
together with the competent Community bodies, should
cooperate in introducing and developing the relevant
technologies where this is necessary to apply the guarantees
provided for by this Directive and taking particular
account of the objectives of minimising the processing
of personal data and of using anonymous or pseudonymous
data where possible.
(10) In the electronic communications sector, Directive 95/
46/EC applies in particular to all matters concerning
protection of fundamental rights and freedoms, which
are not specifically covered by the provisions of this
Directive, including the obligations on the controller and
the rights of individuals. Directive 95/46/EC applies to
non-public communications services.
(11) Like Directive 95/46/EC, this Directive does not address
issues of protection of fundamental rights and freedoms
related to activities which are not governed by Community
law. Therefore it does not alter the existing balance
between the individual’s right to privacy and the possibility
for Member States to take the measures referred to in
Article 15(1) of this Directive, necessary for the protection
of public security, defence, State security (including
the economic well-being of the State when the activities
relate to State security matters) and the enforcement of
criminal law. Consequently, this Directive does not affect
the ability of Member States to carry out lawful interception
of electronic communications, or take other
measures, if necessary for any of these purposes and in
accordance with the European Convention for the
Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms,
as interpreted by the rulings of the European Court of
Human Rights. Such measures must be appropriate,
strictly proportionate to the intended purpose and necessary
within a democratic society and should be subject
to adequate safeguards in accordance with the European
Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and
Fundamental Freedoms.
(12) Subscribers to a publicly available electronic communications
service may be natural or legal persons. By supplementing
Directive 95/46/EC, this Directive is aimed at
protecting the fundamental rights of natural persons and
particularly their right to privacy, as well as the legitimate
interests of legal persons. This Directive does not
entail an obligation for Member States to extend the
application of Directive 95/46/EC to the protection of
the legitimate interests of legal persons, which is ensured
within the framework of the applicable Community and
national legislation.
(13) The contractual relation between a subscriber and a
service provider may entail a periodic or a one-off
payment for the service provided or to be provided.
Prepaid cards are also considered as a contract.
31.7.2002
(14) Location data may refer to the latitude, longitude and
altitude of the user’s terminal equipment, to the direction
of travel, to the level of accuracy of the location information,
to the identification of the network cell in which
the terminal equipment is located at a certain point in
time and to the time the location information was
recorded.
(15) A communication may include any naming, numbering
or addressing information provided by the sender of a
communication or the user of a connection to carry out
the communication. Traffic data may include any translation
of this information by the network over which the
communication is transmitted for the purpose of
carrying out the transmission. Traffic data may, inter alia,
consist of data referring to the routing, duration, time or
volume of a communication, to the protocol used, to the
location of the terminal equipment of the sender or recipient,
to the network on which the communication
originates or terminates, to the beginning, end or duration
of a connection. They may also consist of the
format in which the communication is conveyed by the
network.
(16) Information that is part of a broadcasting service
provided over a public communications network is
intended for a potentially unlimited audience and does
not constitute a communication in the sense of this
Directive. However, in cases where the individual
subscriber or user receiving such information can be
identified, for example with video-on-demand services,
the information conveyed is covered within the meaning
of a communication for the purposes of this Directive.
(17) For the purposes of this Directive, consent of a user or
subscriber, regardless of whether the latter is a natural or
a legal person, should have the same meaning as the data
subject’s consent as defined and further specified in
Directive 95/46/EC. Consent may be given by any appropriate
method enabling a freely given specific and
informed indication of the user’s wishes, including by
ticking a box when visiting an Internet website.
(18) Value added services may, for example, consist of advice
on least expensive tariff packages, route guidance, traffic
information, weather forecasts and tourist information.
(19) The application of certain requirements relating to
presentation and restriction of calling and connected line
identification and to automatic call forwarding to
subscriber lines connected to analogue exchanges should
not be made mandatory in specific cases where such
application would prove to be technically impossible or
would require a disproportionate economic effort. It is
important for interested parties to be informed of such
cases and the Member States should therefore notify
them to the Commission.

31.7.2002 L 201/39
Official Journal of the European Communities
EN
(20) Service providers should take appropriate measures to
safeguard the security of their services, if necessary in
conjunction with the provider of the network, and
inform subscribers of any special risks of a breach of the
security of the network. Such risks may especially occur
for electronic communications services over an open
network such as the Internet or analogue mobile telephony.
It is particularly important for subscribers and
users of such services to be fully informed by their
service provider of the existing security risks which lie
outside the scope of possible remedies by the service
provider. Service providers who offer publicly available
electronic communications services over the Internet
should inform users and subscribers of measures they
can take to protect the security of their communications
for instance by using specific types of software or
encryption technologies. The requirement to inform
subscribers of particular security risks does not discharge
a service provider from the obligation to take, at its own
costs, appropriate and immediate measures to remedy
any new, unforeseen security risks and restore the
normal security level of the service. The provision of
information about security risks to the subscriber should
be free of charge except for any nominal costs which the
subscriber may incur while receiving or collecting the
information, for instance by downloading an electronic
mail message. Security is appraised in the light of Article
17 of Directive 95/46/EC.
(21) Measures should be taken to prevent unauthorised access
to communications in order to protect the confidentiality
of communications, including both the contents and any
data related to such communications, by means of public
communications networks and publicly available electronic
communications services. National legislation in
some Member States only prohibits intentional
unauthorised access to communications.
(22) The prohibition of storage of communications and the
related traffic data by persons other than the users or
without their consent is not intended to prohibit any
automatic, intermediate and transient storage of this
information in so far as this takes place for the sole
purpose of carrying out the transmission in the electronic
communications network and provided that the
information is not stored for any period longer than is
necessary for the transmission and for traffic management
purposes, and that during the period of storage the
confidentiality remains guaranteed. Where this is necessary
for making more efficient the onward transmission
of any publicly accessible information to other recipients
of the service upon their request, this Directive should
not prevent such information from being further stored,
provided that this information would in any case be
accessible to the public without restriction and that any
data referring to the individual subscribers or users
requesting such information are erased.
(23) Confidentiality of communications should also be
ensured in the course of lawful business practice. Where
necessary and legally authorised, communications can be
recorded for the purpose of providing evidence of a
commercial transaction. Directive 95/46/EC applies to
such processing. Parties to the communications should
be informed prior to the recording about the recording,
its purpose and the duration of its storage. The recorded
communication should be erased as soon as possible and
in any case at the latest by the end of the period during
which the transaction can be lawfully challenged.
(24) Terminal equipment of users of electronic communications
networks and any information stored on such
equipment are part of the private sphere of the users
requiring protection under the European Convention for
the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms.
So-called spyware, web bugs, hidden identifiers
and other similar devices can enter the user’s terminal
without their knowledge in order to gain access to information,
to store hidden information or to trace the activities
of the user and may seriously intrude upon the
privacy of these users. The use of such devices should be
allowed only for legitimate purposes, with the knowledge
of the users concerned.
(25) However, such devices, for instance so-called ‘cookies’,
can be a legitimate and useful tool, for example, in
analysing the effectiveness of website design and advertising,
and in verifying the identity of users engaged in
on-line transactions. Where such devices, for instance
cookies, are intended for a legitimate purpose, such as to
facilitate the provision of information society services,
their use should be allowed on condition that users are
provided with clear and precise information in accordance
with Directive 95/46/EC about the purposes of
cookies or similar devices so as to ensure that users are
made aware of information being placed on the terminal
equipment they are using. Users should have the opportunity
to refuse to have a cookie or similar device stored
on their terminal equipment. This is particularly important
where users other than the original user have access
to the terminal equipment and thereby to any data
containing privacy-sensitive information stored on such
equipment. Information and the right to refuse may be
offered once for the use of various devices to be installed
on the user’s terminal equipment during the same
connection and also covering any further use that may
be made of those devices during subsequent connections.
The methods for giving information, offering a right to
refuse or requesting consent should be made as userfriendly
as possible. Access to specific website content
may still be made conditional on the well-informed
acceptance of a cookie or similar device, if it is used for
a legitimate purpose.

L 201/40 Official Journal of the European Communities
EN
(26) The data relating to subscribers processed within electronic
communications networks to establish connections
and to transmit information contain information
on the private life of natural persons and concern the
right to respect for their correspondence or concern the
legitimate interests of legal persons. Such data may only
be stored to the extent that is necessary for the provision
of the service for the purpose of billing and for interconnection
payments, and for a limited time. Any further
processing of such data which the provider of the
publicly available electronic communications services
may want to perform, for the marketing of electronic
communications services or for the provision of value
added services, may only be allowed if the subscriber has
agreed to this on the basis of accurate and full information
given by the provider of the publicly available electronic
communications services about the types of
further processing it intends to perform and about the
subscriber’s right not to give or to withdraw his/her
consent to such processing. Traffic data used for
marketing communications services or for the provision
of value added services should also be erased or made
anonymous after the provision of the service. Service
providers should always keep subscribers informed of
the types of data they are processing and the purposes
and duration for which this is done.
(27) The exact moment of the completion of the transmission
of a communication, after which traffic data should be
erased except for billing purposes, may depend on the
type of electronic communications service that is
provided. For instance for a voice telephony call the
transmission will be completed as soon as either of the
users terminates the connection. For electronic mail the
transmission is completed as soon as the addressee
collects the message, typically from the server of his
service provider.
(28) The obligation to erase traffic data or to make such data
anonymous when it is no longer needed for the purpose
of the transmission of a communication does not
conflict with such procedures on the Internet as the
caching in the domain name system of IP addresses or
the caching of IP addresses to physical address bindings
or the use of log-in information to control the right of
access to networks or services.
(29) The service provider may process traffic data relating to
subscribers and users where necessary in individual cases
in order to detect technical failure or errors in the transmission
of communications. Traffic data necessary for
billing purposes may also be processed by the provider
in order to detect and stop fraud consisting of unpaid
use of the electronic communications service.
31.7.2002
(30) Systems for the provision of electronic communications
networks and services should be designed to limit the
amount of personal data necessary to a strict minimum.
Any activities related to the provision of the electronic
communications service that go beyond the transmission
of a communication and the billing thereof should be
based on aggregated, traffic data that cannot be related
to subscribers or users. Where such activities cannot be
based on aggregated data, they should be considered as
value added services for which the consent of the
subscriber is required.
(31) Whether the consent to be obtained for the processing
of personal data with a view to providing a particular
value added service should be that of the user or of the
subscriber, will depend on the data to be processed and
on the type of service to be provided and on whether it
is technically, procedurally and contractually possible to
distinguish the individual using an electronic communications
service from the legal or natural person having
subscribed to it.
(32) Where the provider of an electronic communications
service or of a value added service subcontracts the
processing of personal data necessary for the provision
of these services to another entity, such subcontracting
and subsequent data processing should be in full compliance
with the requirements regarding controllers and
processors of personal data as set out in Directive 95/46/
EC. Where the provision of a value added service
requires that traffic or location data are forwarded from
an electronic communications service provider to a
provider of value added services, the subscribers or users
to whom the data are related should also be fully
informed of this forwarding before giving their consent
for the processing of the data.
(33) The introduction of itemised bills has improved the
possibilities for the subscriber to check the accuracy of
the fees charged by the service provider but, at the same
time, it may jeopardise the privacy of the users of
publicly available electronic communications services.
Therefore, in order to preserve the privacy of the user,
Member States should encourage the development of
electronic communication service options such as alternative
payment facilities which allow anonymous or
strictly private access to publicly available electronic
communications services, for example calling cards and
facilities for payment by credit card. To the same end,
Member States may ask the operators to offer their
subscribers a different type of detailed bill in which a
certain number of digits of the called number have been
deleted.

31.7.2002 L 201/41
Official Journal of the European Communities
EN
(34) It is necessary, as regards calling line identification, to
protect the right of the calling party to withhold the
presentation of the identification of the line from which
the call is being made and the right of the called party to
reject calls from unidentified lines. There is justification
for overriding the elimination of calling line identification
presentation in specific cases. Certain subscribers, in
particular help lines and similar organisations, have an
interest in guaranteeing the anonymity of their callers. It
is necessary, as regards connected line identification, to
protect the right and the legitimate interest of the called
party to withhold the presentation of the identification
of the line to which the calling party is actually
connected, in particular in the case of forwarded calls.
The providers of publicly available electronic communications
services should inform their subscribers of the
existence of calling and connected line identification in
the network and of all services which are offered on the
basis of calling and connected line identification as well
as the privacy options which are available. This will
allow the subscribers to make an informed choice about
the privacy facilities they may want to use. The privacy
options which are offered on a per-line basis do not
necessarily have to be available as an automatic network
service but may be obtainable through a simple request
to the provider of the publicly available electronic
communications service.
(35) In digital mobile networks, location data giving the
geographic position of the terminal equipment of the
mobile user are processed to enable the transmission of
communications. Such data are traffic data covered by
Article 6 of this Directive. However, in addition, digital
mobile networks may have the capacity to process location
data which are more precise than is necessary for
the transmission of communications and which are used
for the provision of value added services such as services
providing individualised traffic information and guidance
to drivers. The processing of such data for value added
services should only be allowed where subscribers have
given their consent. Even in cases where subscribers have
given their consent, they should have a simple means to
temporarily deny the processing of location data, free of
charge.
(36) Member States may restrict the users’ and subscribers’
rights to privacy with regard to calling line identification
where this is necessary to trace nuisance calls and with
regard to calling line identification and location data
where this is necessary to allow emergency services to
carry out their tasks as effectively as possible. For these
purposes, Member States may adopt specific provisions
to entitle providers of electronic communications
services to provide access to calling line identification
and location data without the prior consent of the users
or subscribers concerned.
(37) Safeguards should be provided for subscribers against
the nuisance which may be caused by automatic call
forwarding by others. Moreover, in such cases, it must
be possible for subscribers to stop the forwarded calls
being passed on to their terminals by simple request to
the provider of the publicly available electronic communications
service.
(38) Directories of subscribers to electronic communications
services are widely distributed and public. The right to
privacy of natural persons and the legitimate interest of
legal persons require that subscribers are able to determine
whether their personal data are published in a
directory and if so, which. Providers of public directories
should inform the subscribers to be included in such
directories of the purposes of the directory and of any
particular usage which may be made of electronic
versions of public directories especially through search
functions embedded in the software, such as reverse
search functions enabling users of the directory to
discover the name and address of the subscriber on the
basis of a telephone number only.
(39) The obligation to inform subscribers of the purpose(s) of
public directories in which their personal data are to be
included should be imposed on the party collecting the
data for such inclusion. Where the data may be transmitted
to one or more third parties, the subscriber
should be informed of this possibility and of the recipient
or the categories of possible recipients. Any transmission
should be subject to the condition that the data
may not be used for other purposes than those for which
they were collected. If the party collecting the data from
the subscriber or any third party to whom the data have
been transmitted wishes to use the data for an additional
purpose, the renewed consent of the subscriber is to be
obtained either by the initial party collecting the data or
by the third party to whom the data have been transmitted.
(40) Safeguards should be provided for subscribers against
intrusion of their privacy by unsolicited communications
for direct marketing purposes in particular by means of
automated calling machines, telefaxes, and e-mails,
including SMS messages. These forms of unsolicited
commercial communications may on the one hand be
relatively easy and cheap to send and on the other may
impose a burden and/or cost on the recipient. Moreover,
in some cases their volume may also cause difficulties
for electronic communications networks and terminal
equipment. For such forms of unsolicited communications
for direct marketing, it is justified to require that
prior explicit consent of the recipients is obtained before
such communications are addressed to them. The single
market requires a harmonised approach to ensure
simple, Community-wide rules for businesses and users.

L 201/42 Official Journal of the European Communities
EN
(41) Within the context of an existing customer relationship,
it is reasonable to allow the use of electronic contact
details for the offering of similar products or services,
but only by the same company that has obtained the
electronic contact details in accordance with Directive
95/46/EC. When electronic contact details are obtained,
the customer should be informed about their further use
for direct marketing in a clear and distinct manner, and
be given the opportunity to refuse such usage. This
opportunity should continue to be offered with each
subsequent direct marketing message, free of charge,
except for any costs for the transmission of this refusal.
(42) Other forms of direct marketing that are more costly for
the sender and impose no financial costs on subscribers
and users, such as person-to-person voice telephony
calls, may justify the maintenance of a system giving
subscribers or users the possibility to indicate that they
do not want to receive such calls. Nevertheless, in order
not to decrease existing levels of privacy protection,
Member States should be entitled to uphold national
systems, only allowing such calls to subscribers and users
who have given their prior consent.
(43) To facilitate effective enforcement of Community rules
on unsolicited messages for direct marketing, it is necessary
to prohibit the use of false identities or false return
addresses or numbers while sending unsolicited messages
for direct marketing purposes.
(44) Certain electronic mail systems allow subscribers to view
the sender and subject line of an electronic mail, and also
to delete the message, without having to download the
rest of the electronic mail’s content or any attachments,
thereby reducing costs which could arise from downloading
unsolicited electronic mails or attachments.
These arrangements may continue to be useful in certain
cases as an additional tool to the general obligations
established in this Directive.
(45) This Directive is without prejudice to the arrangements
which Member States make to protect the legitimate
interests of legal persons with regard to unsolicited
communications for direct marketing purposes. Where
Member States establish an opt-out register for such
communications to legal persons, mostly business users,
the provisions of Article 7 of Directive 2000/31/EC of
the European Parliament and of the Council of 8 June
2000 on certain legal aspects of information society
services, in particular electronic commerce, in the
internal market (Directive on electronic commerce) ( 1 )
are fully applicable.
(46) The functionalities for the provision of electronic
communications services may be integrated in the
network or in any part of the terminal equipment of the
user, including the software. The protection of the
personal data and the privacy of the user of publicly
available electronic communications services should be
independent of the configuration of the various compo-
nents necessary to provide the service and of the distribution
of the necessary functionalities between these
components. Directive 95/46/EC covers any form of
processing of personal data regardless of the technology
used. The existence of specific rules for electronic
communications services alongside general rules for
other components necessary for the provision of such
services may not facilitate the protection of personal data
and privacy in a technologically neutral way. It may
therefore be necessary to adopt measures requiring
manufacturers of certain types of equipment used for
electronic communications services to construct their
product in such a way as to incorporate safeguards to
ensure that the personal data and privacy of the user and
subscriber are protected. The adoption of such measures
in accordance with Directive 1999/5/EC of the European
Parliament and of the Council of 9 March 1999 on radio
equipment and telecommunications terminal equipment
and the mutual recognition of their conformity ( 2 ) will
ensure that the introduction of technical features of electronic
communication equipment including software for
data protection purposes is harmonised in order to be
compatible with the implementation of the internal
market.
(47) Where the rights of the users and subscribers are not
respected, national legislation should provide for judicial
remedies. Penalties should be imposed on any person,
whether governed by private or public law, who fails to
comply with the national measures taken under this
Directive.
(48) It is useful, in the field of application of this Directive, to
draw on the experience of the Working Party on the
Protection of Individuals with regard to the Processing of
Personal Data composed of representatives of the supervisory
authorities of the Member States, set up by Article
29 of Directive 95/46/EC.
(49) To facilitate compliance with the provisions of this
Directive, certain specific arrangements are needed for
processing of data already under way on the date that
national implementing legislation pursuant to this Directive
enters into force,
HAVE ADOPTED THIS DIRECTIVE:
( 1 ) OJ L 178, 17.7.2000, p. 1. ( 2 ) OJ L 91, 7.4.1999, p. 10.
Article 1
Scope and aim
31.7.2002
1. This Directive harmonises the provisions of the Member
States required to ensure an equivalent level of protection of
fundamental rights and freedoms, and in particular the right to
privacy, with respect to the processing of personal data in the
electronic communication sector and to ensure the free movement
of such data and of electronic communication equipment
and services in the Community.

31.7.2002 EN
Official Journal of the European Communities
L 201/43
2. The provisions of this Directive particularise and complement
Directive 95/46/EC for the purposes mentioned in paragraph
1. Moreover, they provide for protection of the legitimate
interests of subscribers who are legal persons.
3. This Directive shall not apply to activities which fall
outside the scope of the Treaty establishing the European
Community, such as those covered by Titles V and VI of the
Treaty on European Union, and in any case to activities
concerning public security, defence, State security (including
the economic well-being of the State when the activities relate
to State security matters) and the activities of the State in areas
of criminal law.
Article 2
Definitions
Save as otherwise provided, the definitions in Directive 95/46/
EC and in Directive 2002/21/EC of the European Parliament
and of the Council of 7 March 2002 on a common regulatory
framework for electronic communications networks and
services (Framework Directive) ( 1 ) shall apply.
The following definitions shall also apply:
(a) ‘user’ means any natural person using a publicly available
electronic communications service, for private or business
purposes, without necessarily having subscribed to this
service;
(b) ‘traffic data’ means any data processed for the purpose of
the conveyance of a communication on an electronic
communications network or for the billing thereof;
(c) ‘location data’ means any data processed in an electronic
communications network, indicating the geographic position
of the terminal equipment of a user of a publicly available
electronic communications service;
(d) ‘communication’ means any information exchanged or
conveyed between a finite number of parties by means of a
publicly available electronic communications service. This
does not include any information conveyed as part of a
broadcasting service to the public over an electronic
communications network except to the extent that the
information can be related to the identifiable subscriber or
user receiving the information;
(e) ‘call’ means a connection established by means of a publicly
available telephone service allowing two-way communication
in real time;
(f) ‘consent’ by a user or subscriber corresponds to the data
subject’s consent in Directive 95/46/EC;
(g) ‘value added service’ means any service which requires the
processing of traffic data or location data other than traffic
data beyond what is necessary for the transmission of a
communication or the billing thereof;
(h) ‘electronic mail’ means any text, voice, sound or image
message sent over a public communications network which
( 1 ) OJ L 108, 24.4.2002, p. 33.
can be stored in the network or in the recipient’s terminal
equipment until it is collected by the recipient.
Article 3
Services concerned
1. This Directive shall apply to the processing of personal
data in connection with the provision of publicly available electronic
communications services in public communications
networks in the Community.
2. Articles 8, 10 and 11 shall apply to subscriber lines
connected to digital exchanges and, where technically possible
and if it does not require a disproportionate economic effort, to
subscriber lines connected to analogue exchanges.
3. Cases where it would be technically impossible or require
a disproportionate economic effort to fulfil the requirements of
Articles 8, 10 and 11 shall be notified to the Commission by
the Member States.
Article 4
Security
1. The provider of a publicly available electronic communications
service must take appropriate technical and organisational
measures to safeguard security of its services, if necessary
in conjunction with the provider of the public communications
network with respect to network security. Having regard to the
state of the art and the cost of their implementation, these
measures shall ensure a level of security appropriate to the risk
presented.
2. In case of a particular risk of a breach of the security of
the network, the provider of a publicly available electronic
communications service must inform the subscribers
concerning such risk and, where the risk lies outside the scope
of the measures to be taken by the service provider, of any
possible remedies, including an indication of the likely costs
involved.
Article 5
Confidentiality of the communications
1. Member States shall ensure the confidentiality of communications
and the related traffic data by means of a public
communications network and publicly available electronic
communications services, through national legislation. In particular,
they shall prohibit listening, tapping, storage or other
kinds of interception or surveillance of communications and
the related traffic data by persons other than users, without the
consent of the users concerned, except when legally authorised
to do so in accordance with Article 15(1). This paragraph shall
not prevent technical storage which is necessary for the conveyance
of a communication without prejudice to the principle of
confidentiality.

L 201/44 Official Journal of the European Communities
EN
2. Paragraph 1 shall not affect any legally authorised
recording of communications and the related traffic data when
carried out in the course of lawful business practice for the
purpose of providing evidence of a commercial transaction or
of any other business communication.
3. Member States shall ensure that the use of electronic
communications networks to store information or to gain
access to information stored in the terminal equipment of a
subscriber or user is only allowed on condition that the
subscriber or user concerned is provided with clear and
comprehensive information in accordance with Directive 95/
46/EC, inter alia about the purposes of the processing, and is
offered the right to refuse such processing by the data
controller. This shall not prevent any technical storage or access
for the sole purpose of carrying out or facilitating the transmission
of a communication over an electronic communications
network, or as strictly necessary in order to provide an information
society service explicitly requested by the subscriber or
user.
Article 6
Traffic data
1. Traffic data relating to subscribers and users processed
and stored by the provider of a public communications
network or publicly available electronic communications
service must be erased or made anonymous when it is no
longer needed for the purpose of the transmission of a communication
without prejudice to paragraphs 2, 3 and 5 of this
Article and Article 15(1).
2. Traffic data necessary for the purposes of subscriber
billing and interconnection payments may be processed. Such
processing is permissible only up to the end of the period
during which the bill may lawfully be challenged or payment
pursued.
3. For the purpose of marketing electronic communications
services or for the provision of value added services, the
provider of a publicly available electronic communications
service may process the data referred to in paragraph 1 to the
extent and for the duration necessary for such services or
marketing, if the subscriber or user to whom the data relate has
given his/her consent. Users or subscribers shall be given the
possibility to withdraw their consent for the processing of
traffic data at any time.
4. The service provider must inform the subscriber or user
of the types of traffic data which are processed and of the duration
of such processing for the purposes mentioned in paragraph
2 and, prior to obtaining consent, for the purposes
mentioned in paragraph 3.
5. Processing of traffic data, in accordance with paragraphs
1, 2, 3 and 4, must be restricted to persons acting under the
authority of providers of the public communications networks
and publicly available electronic communications services handling
billing or traffic management, customer enquiries, fraud
detection, marketing electronic communications services or
providing a value added service, and must be restricted to what
is necessary for the purposes of such activities.
6. Paragraphs 1, 2, 3 and 5 shall apply without prejudice to
the possibility for competent bodies to be informed of traffic
data in conformity with applicable legislation with a view to
settling disputes, in particular interconnection or billing
disputes.
Article 7
Itemised billing
1. Subscribers shall have the right to receive non-itemised
bills.
2. Member States shall apply national provisions in order to
reconcile the rights of subscribers receiving itemised bills with
the right to privacy of calling users and called subscribers, for
example by ensuring that sufficient alternative privacy enhancing
methods of communications or payments are available to
such users and subscribers.
Article 8
31.7.2002
Presentation and restriction of calling and connected line
identification
1. Where presentation of calling line identification is offered,
the service provider must offer the calling user the possibility,
using a simple means and free of charge, of preventing the
presentation of the calling line identification on a per-call basis.
The calling subscriber must have this possibility on a per-line
basis.
2. Where presentation of calling line identification is offered,
the service provider must offer the called subscriber the possibility,
using a simple means and free of charge for reasonable use
of this function, of preventing the presentation of the calling
line identification of incoming calls.
3. Where presentation of calling line identification is offered
and where the calling line identification is presented prior to
the call being established, the service provider must offer the
called subscriber the possibility, using a simple means, of
rejecting incoming calls where the presentation of the calling
line identification has been prevented by the calling user or
subscriber.
4. Where presentation of connected line identification is
offered, the service provider must offer the called subscriber the
possibility, using a simple means and free of charge, of
preventing the presentation of the connected line identification
to the calling user.
5. Paragraph 1 shall also apply with regard to calls to third
countries originating in the Community. Paragraphs 2, 3 and 4
shall also apply to incoming calls originating in third countries.
6. Member States shall ensure that where presentation of
calling and/or connected line identification is offered, the providers
of publicly available electronic communications services
inform the public thereof and of the possibilities set out in
paragraphs 1, 2, 3 and 4.

31.7.2002 L 201/45
Official Journal of the European Communities
EN
Article 9
Location data otherthan traffic data
1. Where location data other than traffic data, relating to
users or subscribers of public communications networks or
publicly available electronic communications services, can be
processed, such data may only be processed when they are
made anonymous, or with the consent of the users or subscribers
to the extent and for the duration necessary for the provision
of a value added service. The service provider must inform
the users or subscribers, prior to obtaining their consent, of the
type of location data other than traffic data which will be
processed, of the purposes and duration of the processing and
whether the data will be transmitted to a third party for the
purpose of providing the value added service. Users or subscribers
shall be given the possibility to withdraw their consent for
the processing of location data other than traffic data at any
time.
2. Where consent of the users or subscribers has been
obtained for the processing of location data other than traffic
data, the user or subscriber must continue to have the possibility,
using a simple means and free of charge, of temporarily
refusing the processing of such data for each connection to the
network or for each transmission of a communication.
3. Processing of location data other than traffic data in
accordance with paragraphs 1 and 2 must be restricted to
persons acting under the authority of the provider of the public
communications network or publicly available communications
service or of the third party providing the value added service,
and must be restricted to what is necessary for the purposes of
providing the value added service.
Article 10
Exceptions
Member States shall ensure that there are transparent procedures
governing the way in which a provider of a public
communications network and/or a publicly available electronic
communications service may override:
(a) the elimination of the presentation of calling line identification,
on a temporary basis, upon application of a subscriber
requesting the tracing of malicious or nuisance calls. In this
case, in accordance with national law, the data containing
the identification of the calling subscriber will be stored and
be made available by the provider of a public communications
network and/or publicly available electronic communications
service;
(b) the elimination of the presentation of calling line identification
and the temporary denial or absence of consent of a
subscriber or user for the processing of location data, on a
per-line basis for organisations dealing with emergency calls
and recognised as such by a Member State, including law
enforcement agencies, ambulance services and fire brigades,
for the purpose of responding to such calls.
Article 11
Automatic call forwarding
Member States shall ensure that any subscriber has the possibility,
using a simple means and free of charge, of stopping
automatic call forwarding by a third party to the subscriber’s
terminal.
Article 12
Directories of subscribers
1. Member States shall ensure that subscribers are informed,
free of charge and before they are included in the directory,
about the purpose(s) of a printed or electronic directory of
subscribers available to the public or obtainable through directory
enquiry services, in which their personal data can be
included and of any further usage possibilities based on search
functions embedded in electronic versions of the directory.
2. Member States shall ensure that subscribers are given the
opportunity to determine whether their personal data are
included in a public directory, and if so, which, to the extent
that such data are relevant for the purpose of the directory as
determined by the provider of the directory, and to verify,
correct or withdraw such data. Not being included in a public
subscriber directory, verifying, correcting or withdrawing
personal data from it shall be free of charge.
3. Member States may require that for any purpose of a
public directory other than the search of contact details of
persons on the basis of their name and, where necessary, a
minimum of other identifiers, additional consent be asked of
the subscribers.
4. Paragraphs 1 and 2 shall apply to subscribers who are
natural persons. Member States shall also ensure, in the framework
of Community law and applicable national legislation,
that the legitimate interests of subscribers other than natural
persons with regard to their entry in public directories are sufficiently
protected.
Article 13
Unsolicited communications
1. The use of automated calling systems without human
intervention (automatic calling machines), facsimile machines
(fax) or electronic mail for the purposes of direct marketing
may only be allowed in respect of subscribers who have given
their prior consent.
2. Notwithstanding paragraph 1, where a natural or legal
person obtains from its customers their electronic contact
details for electronic mail, in the context of the sale of a
product or a service, in accordance with Directive 95/46/EC,
the same natural or legal person may use these electronic
contact details for direct marketing of its own similar products
or services provided that customers clearly and distinctly are
given the opportunity to object, free of charge and in an easy
manner, to such use of electronic contact details when they are
collected and on the occasion of each message in case the
customer has not initially refused such use.

L 201/46 Official Journal of the European Communities
EN
3. Member States shall take appropriate measures to ensure
that, free of charge, unsolicited communications for purposes
of direct marketing, in cases other than those referred to in
paragraphs 1 and 2, are not allowed either without the consent
of the subscribers concerned or in respect of subscribers who
do not wish to receive these communications, the choice
between these options to be determined by national legislation.
4. In any event, the practice of sending electronic mail for
purposes of direct marketing disguising or concealing the identity
of the sender on whose behalf the communication is made,
or without a valid address to which the recipient may send a
request that such communications cease, shall be prohibited.
5. Paragraphs 1 and 3 shall apply to subscribers who are
natural persons. Member States shall also ensure, in the framework
of Community law and applicable national legislation,
that the legitimate interests of subscribers other than natural
persons with regard to unsolicited communications are sufficiently
protected.
Article 14
Technical features and standardisation
1. In implementing the provisions of this Directive, Member
States shall ensure, subject to paragraphs 2 and 3, that no
mandatory requirements for specific technical features are
imposed on terminal or other electronic communication equipment
which could impede the placing of equipment on the
market and the free circulation of such equipment in and
between Member States.
2. Where provisions of this Directive can be implemented
only by requiring specific technical features in electronic
communications networks, Member States shall inform the
Commission in accordance with the procedure provided for by
Directive 98/34/EC of the European Parliament and of the
Council of 22 June 1998 laying down a procedure for the
provision of information in the field of technical standards and
regulations and of rules on information society services ( 1 ).
3. Where required, measures may be adopted to ensure that
terminal equipment is constructed in a way that is compatible
with the right of users to protect and control the use of their
personal data, in accordance with Directive 1999/5/EC and
Council Decision 87/95/EEC of 22 December 1986 on standardisation
in the field of information technology and communications
( 2 ).
Article 15
Application of certain provisions of Directive 95/46/EC
1. Member States may adopt legislative measures to restrict
the scope of the rights and obligations provided for in Article
5, Article 6, Article 8(1), (2), (3) and (4), and Article 9 of this
( 1 ) OJ L 204, 21.7.1998, p. 37. Directive as amended by Directive 98/
48/EC (OJ L 217, 5.8.1998, p. 18).
( 2 ) OJ L 36, 7.2.1987, p. 31. Decision as last amended by the 1994 Act
of Accession.
Directive when such restriction constitutes a necessary, appropriate
and proportionate measure within a democratic society
to safeguard national security (i.e. State security), defence,
public security, and the prevention, investigation, detection and
prosecution of criminal offences or of unauthorised use of the
electronic communication system, as referred to in Article
13(1) of Directive 95/46/EC. To this end, Member States may,
inter alia, adopt legislative measures providing for the retention
of data for a limited period justified on the grounds laid down
in this paragraph. All the measures referred to in this paragraph
shall be in accordance with the general principles of Community
law, including those referred to in Article 6(1) and (2) of
the Treaty on European Union.
2. The provisions of Chapter III on judicial remedies, liability
and sanctions of Directive 95/46/EC shall apply with regard to
national provisions adopted pursuant to this Directive and with
regard to the individual rights derived from this Directive.
3. The Working Party on the Protection of Individuals with
regard to the Processing of Personal Data instituted by Article
29 of Directive 95/46/EC shall also carry out the tasks laid
down in Article 30 of that Directive with regard to matters
covered by this Directive, namely the protection of fundamental
rights and freedoms and of legitimate interests in the electronic
communications sector.
Article 16
Transitional arrangements
1. Article 12 shall not apply to editions of directories already
produced or placed on the market in printed or off-line electronic
form before the national provisions adopted pursuant to
this Directive enter into force.
2. Where the personal data of subscribers to fixed or mobile
public voice telephony services have been included in a public
subscriber directory in conformity with the provisions of Directive
95/46/EC and of Article 11 of Directive 97/66/EC before
the national provisions adopted in pursuance of this Directive
enter into force, the personal data of such subscribers may
remain included in this public directory in its printed or electronic
versions, including versions with reverse search functions,
unless subscribers indicate otherwise, after having
received complete information about purposes and options in
accordance with Article 12 of this Directive.
Article 17
Transposition
31.7.2002
1. Before 31 October 2003 Member States shall bring into
force the provisions necessary to comply with this Directive.
They shall forthwith inform the Commission thereof.

31.7.2002 L 201/47
Official Journal of the European Communities
EN
When Member States adopt those provisions, they shall contain
a reference to this Directive or be accompanied by such a reference
on the occasion of their official publication. The methods
of making such reference shall be laid down by the Member
States.
2. Member States shall communicate to the Commission the
text of the provisions of national law which they adopt in the
field governed by this Directive and of any subsequent amendments
to those provisions.
Article 18
Review
The Commission shall submit to the European Parliament and
the Council, not later than three years after the date referred to
in Article 17(1), a report on the application of this Directive
and its impact on economic operators and consumers, in particular
as regards the provisions on unsolicited communications,
taking into account the international environment. For this
purpose, the Commission may request information from the
Member States, which shall be supplied without undue delay.
Where appropriate, the Commission shall submit proposals to
amend this Directive, taking account of the results of that
report, any changes in the sector and any other proposal it may
deem necessary in order to improve the effectiveness of this
Directive.
Article 19
Repeal
Directive 97/66/EC is hereby repealed with effect from the date
referred to in Article 17(1).
References made to the repealed Directive shall be construed as
being made to this Directive.
Article 20
Entry into force
This Directive shall enter into force on the day of its publication
in the Official Journal of the European Communities.
Article 21
Addressees
This Directive is addressed to the Member States.
Done at Brussels, 12 July 2002.
For the European Parliament
The President
P. COX
For the Council
The President
T. PEDERSEN

DIRECTIVE 95/46/EC OF THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND OF THE
COUNCIL
of 24 October 1995
on the protection of individuals with regard to the processing of personal data and on
the free movement of such data
THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND THE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION,
Having regard to the Treaty establishing the European Community, and in particular Article
100a thereof,
Having regard to the proposal from the Commission (1),
Having regard to the opinion of the Economic and Social Committee (2),
Acting in accordance with the procedure referred to in Article 189b of the Treaty (3),
(1) Whereas the objectives of the Community, as laid down in the Treaty, as amended by the
Treaty on European Union, include creating an ever closer union among the peoples of
Europe, fostering closer relations between the States belonging to the Community, ensuring
economic and social progress by common action to eliminate the barriers which divide
Europe, encouraging the constant improvement of the living conditions of its peoples,
preserving and strengthening peace and liberty and promoting democracy on the basis of the
fundamental rights recognized in the constitution and laws of the Member States and in the
European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms;
(2) Whereas data-processing systems are designed to serve man; whereas they must, whatever
the nationality or residence of natural persons, respect their fundamental rights and freedoms,
notably the right to privacy, and contribute to economic and social progress, trade expansion
and the well-being of individuals;
(3) Whereas the establishment and functioning of an internal market in which, in accordance
with Article 7a of the Treaty, the free movement of goods, persons, services and capital is
ensured require not only that personal data should be able to flow freely from one Member
State to another, but also that the fundamental rights of individuals should be safeguarded;
(4) Whereas increasingly frequent recourse is being had in the Community to the processing
of personal data in the various spheres of economic and social activity; whereas the progress
made in information technology is making the processing and exchange of such data
considerably easier;
(5) Whereas the economic and social integration resulting from the establishment and
functioning of the internal market within the meaning of Article 7a of the Treaty will
necessarily lead to a substantial increase in cross-border flows of personal data between all
those involved in a private or public capacity in economic and social activity in the Member
States; whereas the exchange of personal data between undertakings in different Member

States is set to increase; whereas the national authorities in the various Member States are
being called upon by virtue of Community law to collaborate and exchange personal data so
as to be able to perform their duties or carry out tasks on behalf of an authority in another
Member State within the context of the area without internal frontiers as constituted by the
internal market;
(6) Whereas, furthermore, the increase in scientific and technical cooperation and the
coordinated introduction of new telecommunications networks in the Community necessitate
and facilitate cross-border flows of personal data;
(7) Whereas the difference in levels of protection of the rights and freedoms of individuals,
notably the right to privacy, with regard to the processing of personal data afforded in the
Member States may prevent the transmission of such data from the territory of one Member
State to that of another Member State; whereas this difference may therefore constitute an
obstacle to the pursuit of a number of economic activities at Community level, distort
competition and impede authorities in the discharge of their responsibilities under Community
law; whereas this difference in levels of protection is due to the existence of a wide variety of
national laws, regulations and administrative provisions;
(8) Whereas, in order to remove the obstacles to flows of personal data, the level of protection
of the rights and freedoms of individuals with regard to the processing of such data must be
equivalent in all Member States; whereas this objective is vital to the internal market but
cannot be achieved by the Member States alone, especially in view of the scale of the
divergences which currently exist between the relevant laws in the Member States and the
need to coordinate the laws of the Member States so as to ensure that the cross-border flow of
personal data is regulated in a consistent manner that is in keeping with the objective of the
internal market as provided for in Article 7a of the Treaty; whereas Community action to
approximate those laws is therefore needed;
(9) Whereas, given the equivalent protection resulting from the approximation of national
laws, the Member States will no longer be able to inhibit the free movement between them of
personal data on grounds relating to protection of the rights and freedoms of individuals, and
in particular the right to privacy; whereas Member States will be left a margin for manoeuvre,
which may, in the context of implementation of the Directive, also be exercised by the
business and social partners; whereas Member States will therefore be able to specify in their
national law the general conditions governing the lawfulness of data processing; whereas in
doing so the Member States shall strive to improve the protection currently provided by their
legislation; whereas, within the limits of this margin for manoeuvre and in accordance with
Community law, disparities could arise in the implementation of the Directive, and this could
have an effect on the movement of data within a Member State as well as within the
Community;
(10) Whereas the object of the national laws on the processing of personal data is to protect
fundamental rights and freedoms, notably the right to privacy, which is recognized both in
Article 8 of the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental
Freedoms and in the general principles of Community law; whereas, for that reason, the
approximation of those laws must not result in any lessening of the protection they afford but
must, on the contrary, seek to ensure a high level of protection in the Community;

(11) Whereas the principles of the protection of the rights and freedoms of individuals,
notably the right to privacy, which are contained in this Directive, give substance to and
amplify those contained in the Council of Europe Convention of 28 January 1981 for the
Protection of Individuals with regard to Automatic Processing of Personal Data;
(12) Whereas the protection principles must apply to all processing of personal data by any
person whose activities are governed by Community law; whereas there should be excluded
the processing of data carried out by a natural person in the exercise of activities which are
exclusively personal or domestic, such as correspondence and the holding of records of
addresses;
(13) Whereas the acitivities referred to in Titles V and VI of the Treaty on European Union
regarding public safety, defence, State security or the acitivities of the State in the area of
criminal laws fall outside the scope of Community law, without prejudice to the obligations
incumbent upon Member States under Article 56 (2), Article 57 or Article 100a of the Treaty
establishing the European Community; whereas the processing of personal data that is
necessary to safeguard the economic well-being of the State does not fall within the scope of
this Directive where such processing relates to State security matters;
(14) Whereas, given the importance of the developments under way, in the framework of the
information society, of the techniques used to capture, transmit, manipulate, record, store or
communicate sound and image data relating to natural persons, this Directive should be
applicable to processing involving such data;
(15) Whereas the processing of such data is covered by this Directive only if it is automated
or if the data processed are contained or are intended to be contained in a filing system
structured according to specific criteria relating to individuals, so as to permit easy access to
the personal data in question;
(16) Whereas the processing of sound and image data, such as in cases of video surveillance,
does not come within the scope of this Directive if it is carried out for the purposes of public
security, defence, national security or in the course of State activities relating to the area of
criminal law or of other activities which do not come within the scope of Community law;
(17) Whereas, as far as the processing of sound and image data carried out for purposes of
journalism or the purposes of literary or artistic expression is concerned, in particular in the
audiovisual field, the principles of the Directive are to apply in a restricted manner according
to the provisions laid down in Article 9;
(18) Whereas, in order to ensure that individuals are not deprived of the protection to which
they are entitled under this Directive, any processing of personal data in the Community must
be carried out in accordance with the law of one of the Member States; whereas, in this
connection, processing carried out under the responsibility of a controller who is established
in a Member State should be governed by the law of that State;
(19) Whereas establishment on the territory of a Member State implies the effective and real
exercise of activity through stable arrangements; whereas the legal form of such an
establishment, whether simply branch or a subsidiary with a legal personality, is not the
determining factor in this respect; whereas, when a single controller is established on the
territory of several Member States, particularly by means of subsidiaries, he must ensure, in

order to avoid any circumvention of national rules, that each of the establishments fulfils the
obligations imposed by the national law applicable to its activities;
(20) Whereas the fact that the processing of data is carried out by a person established in a
third country must not stand in the way of the protection of individuals provided for in this
Directive; whereas in these cases, the processing should be governed by the law of the
Member State in which the means used are located, and there should be guarantees to ensure
that the rights and obligations provided for in this Directive are respected in practice;
(21) Whereas this Directive is without prejudice to the rules of territoriality applicable in
criminal matters;
(22) Whereas Member States shall more precisely define in the laws they enact or when
bringing into force the measures taken under this Directive the general circumstances in
which processing is lawful; whereas in particular Article 5, in conjunction with Articles 7 and
8, allows Member States, independently of general rules, to provide for special processing
conditions for specific sectors and for the various categories of data covered by Article 8;
(23) Whereas Member States are empowered to ensure the implementation of the protection
of individuals both by means of a general law on the protection of individuals as regards the
processing of personal data and by sectorial laws such as those relating, for example, to
statistical institutes;
(24) Whereas the legislation concerning the protection of legal persons with regard to the
processing data which concerns them is not affected by this Directive;
(25) Whereas the principles of protection must be reflected, on the one hand, in the
obligations imposed on persons, public authorities, enterprises, agencies or other bodies
responsible for processing, in particular regarding data quality, technical security, notification
to the supervisory authority, and the circumstances under which processing can be carried out,
and, on the other hand, in the right conferred on individuals, the data on whom are the subject
of processing, to be informed that processing is taking place, to consult the data, to request
corrections and even to object to processing in certain circumstances;
(26) Whereas the principles of protection must apply to any information concerning an
identified or identifiable person; whereas, to determine whether a person is identifiable,
account should be taken of all the means likely reasonably to be used either by the controller
or by any other person to identify the said person; whereas the principles of protection shall
not apply to data rendered anonymous in such a way that the data subject is no longer
identifiable; whereas codes of conduct within the meaning of Article 27 may be a useful
instrument for providing guidance as to the ways in which data may be rendered anonymous
and retained in a form in which identification of the data subject is no longer possible;
(27) Whereas the protection of individuals must apply as much to automatic processing of
data as to manual processing; whereas the scope of this protection must not in effect depend
on the techniques used, otherwise this would create a serious risk of circumvention; whereas,
nonetheless, as regards manual processing, this Directive covers only filing systems, not
unstructured files; whereas, in particular, the content of a filing system must be structured
according to specific criteria relating to individuals allowing easy access to the personal data;
whereas, in line with the definition in Article 2 (c), the different criteria for determining the

constituents of a structured set of personal data, and the different criteria governing access to
such a set, may be laid down by each Member State; whereas files or sets of files as well as
their cover pages, which are not structured according to specific criteria, shall under no
circumstances fall within the scope of this Directive;
(28) Whereas any processing of personal data must be lawful and fair to the individuals
concerned; whereas, in particular, the data must be adequate, relevant and not excessive in
relation to the purposes for which they are processed; whereas such purposes must be explicit
and legitimate and must be determined at the time of collection of the data; whereas the
purposes of processing further to collection shall not be incompatible with the purposes as
they were originally specified;
(29) Whereas the further processing of personal data for historical, statistical or scientific
purposes is not generally to be considered incompatible with the purposes for which the data
have previously been collected provided that Member States furnish suitable safeguards;
whereas these safeguards must in particular rule out the use of the data in support of measures
or decisions regarding any particular individual;
(30) Whereas, in order to be lawful, the processing of personal data must in addition be
carried out with the consent of the data subject or be necessary for the conclusion or
performance of a contract binding on the data subject, or as a legal requirement, or for the
performance of a task carried out in the public interest or in the exercise of official authority,
or in the legitimate interests of a natural or legal person, provided that the interests or the
rights and freedoms of the data subject are not overriding; whereas, in particular, in order to
maintain a balance between the interests involved while guaranteeing effective competition,
Member States may determine the circumstances in which personal data may be used or
disclosed to a third party in the context of the legitimate ordinary business activities of
companies and other bodies; whereas Member States may similarly specify the conditions
under which personal data may be disclosed to a third party for the purposes of marketing
whether carried out commercially or by a charitable organization or by any other association
or foundation, of a political nature for example, subject to the provisions allowing a data
subject to object to the processing of data regarding him, at no cost and without having to
state his reasons;
(31) Whereas the processing of personal data must equally be regarded as lawful where it is
carried out in order to protect an interest which is essential for the data subject's life;
(32) Whereas it is for national legislation to determine whether the controller performing a
task carried out in the public interest or in the exercise of official authority should be a public
administration or another natural or legal person governed by public law, or by private law
such as a professional association;
(33) Whereas data which are capable by their nature of infringing fundamental freedoms or
privacy should not be processed unless the data subject gives his explicit consent; whereas,
however, derogations from this prohibition must be explicitly provided for in respect of
specific needs, in particular where the processing of these data is carried out for certain
health-related purposes by persons subject to a legal obligation of professional secrecy or in
the course of legitimate activities by certain associations or foundations the purpose of which
is to permit the exercise of fundamental freedoms;

(34) Whereas Member States must also be authorized, when justified by grounds of important
public interest, to derogate from the prohibition on processing sensitive categories of data
where important reasons of public interest so justify in areas such as public health and social
protection - especially in order to ensure the quality and cost-effectiveness of the procedures
used for settling claims for benefits and services in the health insurance system - scientific
research and government statistics; whereas it is incumbent on them, however, to provide
specific and suitable safeguards so as to protect the fundamental rights and the privacy of
individuals;
(35) Whereas, moreover, the processing of personal data by official authorities for achieving
aims, laid down in constitutional law or international public law, of officially recognized
religious associations is carried out on important grounds of public interest;
(36) Whereas where, in the course of electoral activities, the operation of the democratic
system requires in certain Member States that political parties compile data on people's
political opinion, the processing of such data may be permitted for reasons of important public
interest, provided that appropriate safeguards are established;
(37) Whereas the processing of personal data for purposes of journalism or for purposes of
literary of artistic expression, in particular in the audiovisual field, should qualify for
exemption from the requirements of certain provisions of this Directive in so far as this is
necessary to reconcile the fundamental rights of individuals with freedom of information and
notably the right to receive and impart information, as guaranteed in particular in Article 10 of
the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms;
whereas Member States should therefore lay down exemptions and derogations necessary for
the purpose of balance between fundamental rights as regards general measures on the
legitimacy of data processing, measures on the transfer of data to third countries and the
power of the supervisory authority; whereas this should not, however, lead Member States to
lay down exemptions from the measures to ensure security of processing; whereas at least the
supervisory authority responsible for this sector should also be provided with certain ex-post
powers, e.g. to publish a regular report or to refer matters to the judicial authorities;
(38) Whereas, if the processing of data is to be fair, the data subject must be in a position to
learn of the existence of a processing operation and, where data are collected from him, must
be given accurate and full information, bearing in mind the circumstances of the collection;
(39) Whereas certain processing operations involve data which the controller has not collected
directly from the data subject; whereas, furthermore, data can be legitimately disclosed to a
third party, even if the disclosure was not anticipated at the time the data were collected from
the data subject; whereas, in all these cases, the data subject should be informed when the data
are recorded or at the latest when the data are first disclosed to a third party;
(40) Whereas, however, it is not necessary to impose this obligation of the data subject
already has the information; whereas, moreover, there will be no such obligation if the
recording or disclosure are expressly provided for by law or if the provision of information to
the data subject proves impossible or would involve disproportionate efforts, which could be
the case where processing is for historical, statistical or scientific purposes; whereas, in this
regard, the number of data subjects, the age of the data, and any compensatory measures
adopted may be taken into consideration;

(41) Whereas any person must be able to exercise the right of access to data relating to him
which are being processed, in order to verify in particular the accuracy of the data and the
lawfulness of the processing; whereas, for the same reasons, every data subject must also have
the right to know the logic involved in the automatic processing of data concerning him, at
least in the case of the automated decisions referred to in Article 15 (1); whereas this right
must not adversely affect trade secrets or intellectual property and in particular the copyright
protecting the software; whereas these considerations must not, however, result in the data
subject being refused all information;
(42) Whereas Member States may, in the interest of the data subject or so as to protect the
rights and freedoms of others, restrict rights of access and information; whereas they may, for
example, specify that access to medical data may be obtained only through a health
professional;
(43) Whereas restrictions on the rights of access and information and on certain obligations of
the controller may similarly be imposed by Member States in so far as they are necessary to
safeguard, for example, national security, defence, public safety, or important economic or
financial interests of a Member State or the Union, as well as criminal investigations and
prosecutions and action in respect of breaches of ethics in the regulated professions; whereas
the list of exceptions and limitations should include the tasks of monitoring, inspection or
regulation necessary in the three last-mentioned areas concerning public security, economic or
financial interests and crime prevention; whereas the listing of tasks in these three areas does
not affect the legitimacy of exceptions or restrictions for reasons of State security or defence;
(44) Whereas Member States may also be led, by virtue of the provisions of Community law,
to derogate from the provisions of this Directive concerning the right of access, the obligation
to inform individuals, and the quality of data, in order to secure certain of the purposes
referred to above;
(45) Whereas, in cases where data might lawfully be processed on grounds of public interest,
official authority or the legitimate interests of a natural or legal person, any data subject
should nevertheless be entitled, on legitimate and compelling grounds relating to his particular
situation, to object to the processing of any data relating to himself; whereas Member States
may nevertheless lay down national provisions to the contrary;
(46) Whereas the protection of the rights and freedoms of data subjects with regard to the
processing of personal data requires that appropriate technical and organizational measures be
taken, both at the time of the design of the processing system and at the time of the processing
itself, particularly in order to maintain security and thereby to prevent any unauthorized
processing; whereas it is incumbent on the Member States to ensure that controllers comply
with these measures; whereas these measures must ensure an appropriate level of security,
taking into account the state of the art and the costs of their implementation in relation to the
risks inherent in the processing and the nature of the data to be protected;
(47) Whereas where a message containing personal data is transmitted by means of a
telecommunications or electronic mail service, the sole purpose of which is the transmission
of such messages, the controller in respect of the personal data contained in the message will
normally be considered to be the person from whom the message originates, rather than the
person offering the transmission services; whereas, nevertheless, those offering such services

will normally be considered controllers in respect of the processing of the additional personal
data necessary for the operation of the service;
(48) Whereas the procedures for notifying the supervisory authority are designed to ensure
disclosure of the purposes and main features of any processing operation for the purpose of
verification that the operation is in accordance with the national measures taken under this
Directive;
(49) Whereas, in order to avoid unsuitable administrative formalities, exemptions from the
obligation to notify and simplification of the notification required may be provided for by
Member States in cases where processing is unlikely adversely to affect the rights and
freedoms of data subjects, provided that it is in accordance with a measure taken by a Member
State specifying its limits; whereas exemption or simplification may similarly be provided for
by Member States where a person appointed by the controller ensures that the processing
carried out is not likely adversely to affect the rights and freedoms of data subjects; whereas
such a data protection official, whether or not an employee of the controller, must be in a
position to exercise his functions in complete independence;
(50) Whereas exemption or simplification could be provided for in cases of processing
operations whose sole purpose is the keeping of a register intended, according to national law,
to provide information to the public and open to consultation by the public or by any person
demonstrating a legitimate interest;
(51) Whereas, nevertheless, simplification or exemption from the obligation to notify shall not
release the controller from any of the other obligations resulting from this Directive;
(52) Whereas, in this context, ex post facto verification by the competent authorities must in
general be considered a sufficient measure;
(53) Whereas, however, certain processing operation are likely to pose specific risks to the
rights and freedoms of data subjects by virtue of their nature, their scope or their purposes,
such as that of excluding individuals from a right, benefit or a contract, or by virtue of the
specific use of new technologies; whereas it is for Member States, if they so wish, to specify
such risks in their legislation;
(54) Whereas with regard to all the processing undertaken in society, the amount posing such
specific risks should be very limited; whereas Member States must provide that the
supervisory authority, or the data protection official in cooperation with the authority, check
such processing prior to it being carried out; whereas following this prior check, the
supervisory authority may, according to its national law, give an opinion or an authorization
regarding the processing; whereas such checking may equally take place in the course of the
preparation either of a measure of the national parliament or of a measure based on such a
legislative measure, which defines the nature of the processing and lays down appropriate
safeguards;
(55) Whereas, if the controller fails to respect the rights of data subjects, national legislation
must provide for a judicial remedy; whereas any damage which a person may suffer as a
result of unlawful processing must be compensated for by the controller, who may be
exempted from liability if he proves that he is not responsible for the damage, in particular in
cases where he establishes fault on the part of the data subject or in case of force majeure;

whereas sanctions must be imposed on any person, whether governed by private of public
law, who fails to comply with the national measures taken under this Directive;
(56) Whereas cross-border flows of personal data are necessary to the expansion of
international trade; whereas the protection of individuals guaranteed in the Community by this
Directive does not stand in the way of transfers of personal data to third countries which
ensure an adequate level of protection; whereas the adequacy of the level of protection
afforded by a third country must be assessed in the light of all the circumstances surrounding
the transfer operation or set of transfer operations;
(57) Whereas, on the other hand, the transfer of personal data to a third country which does
not ensure an adequate level of protection must be prohibited;
(58) Whereas provisions should be made for exemptions from this prohibition in certain
circumstances where the data subject has given his consent, where the transfer is necessary in
relation to a contract or a legal claim, where protection of an important public interest so
requires, for example in cases of international transfers of data between tax or customs
administrations or between services competent for social security matters, or where the
transfer is made from a register established by law and intended for consultation by the public
or persons having a legitimate interest; whereas in this case such a transfer should not involve
the entirety of the data or entire categories of the data contained in the register and, when the
register is intended for consultation by persons having a legitimate interest, the transfer should
be made only at the request of those persons or if they are to be the recipients;
(59) Whereas particular measures may be taken to compensate for the lack of protection in a
third country in cases where the controller offers appropriate safeguards; whereas, moreover,
provision must be made for procedures for negotiations between the Community and such
third countries;
(60) Whereas, in any event, transfers to third countries may be effected only in full
compliance with the provisions adopted by the Member States pursuant to this Directive, and
in particular Article 8 thereof;
(61) Whereas Member States and the Commission, in their respective spheres of competence,
must encourage the trade associations and other representative organizations concerned to
draw up codes of conduct so as to facilitate the application of this Directive, taking account of
the specific characteristics of the processing carried out in certain sectors, and respecting the
national provisions adopted for its implementation;
(62) Whereas the establishment in Member States of supervisory authorities, exercising their
functions with complete independence, is an essential component of the protection of
individuals with regard to the processing of personal data;
(63) Whereas such authorities must have the necessary means to perform their duties,
including powers of investigation and intervention, particularly in cases of complaints from
individuals, and powers to engage in legal proceedings; whereas such authorities must help to
ensure transparency of processing in the Member States within whose jurisdiction they fall;

(64) Whereas the authorities in the different Member States will need to assist one another in
performing their duties so as to ensure that the rules of protection are properly respected
throughout the European Union;
(65) Whereas, at Community level, a Working Party on the Protection of Individuals with
regard to the Processing of Personal Data must be set up and be completely independent in the
performance of its functions; whereas, having regard to its specific nature, it must advise the
Commission and, in particular, contribute to the uniform application of the national rules
adopted pursuant to this Directive;
(66) Whereas, with regard to the transfer of data to third countries, the application of this
Directive calls for the conferment of powers of implementation on the Commission and the
establishment of a procedure as laid down in Council Decision 87/373/EEC (1);
(67) Whereas an agreement on a modus vivendi between the European Parliament, the
Council and the Commission concerning the implementing measures for acts adopted in
accordance with the procedure laid down in Article 189b of the EC Treaty was reached on 20
December 1994;
(68) Whereas the principles set out in this Directive regarding the protection of the rights and
freedoms of individuals, notably their right to privacy, with regard to the processing of
personal data may be supplemented or clarified, in particular as far as certain sectors are
concerned, by specific rules based on those principles;
(69) Whereas Member States should be allowed a period of not more than three years from
the entry into force of the national measures transposing this Directive in which to apply such
new national rules progressively to all processing operations already under way; whereas, in
order to facilitate their cost-effective implementation, a further period expiring 12 years after
the date on which this Directive is adopted will be allowed to Member States to ensure the
conformity of existing manual filing systems with certain of the Directive's provisions;
whereas, where data contained in such filing systems are manually processed during this
extended transition period, those systems must be brought into conformity with these
provisions at the time of such processing;
(70) Whereas it is not necessary for the data subject to give his consent again so as to allow
the controller to continue to process, after the national provisions taken pursuant to this
Directive enter into force, any sensitive data necessary for the performance of a contract
concluded on the basis of free and informed consent before the entry into force of these
provisions;
(71) Whereas this Directive does not stand in the way of a Member State's regulating
marketing activities aimed at consumers residing in territory in so far as such regulation does
not concern the protection of individuals with regard to the processing of personal data;
(72) Whereas this Directive allows the principle of public access to official documents to be
taken into account when implementing the principles set out in this Directive,
HAVE ADOPTED THIS DIRECTIVE:
CHAPTER I GENERAL PROVISIONS

Article 1
Object of the Directive
1. In accordance with this Directive, Member States shall protect the fundamental rights and
freedoms of natural persons, and in particular their right to privacy with respect to the
processing of personal data.
2. Member States shall neither restrict nor prohibit the free flow of personal data between
Member States for reasons connected with the protection afforded under paragraph 1.
Article 2
Definitions
For the purposes of this Directive:
(a) 'personal data' shall mean any information relating to an identified or identifiable natural
person ('data subject'); an identifiable person is one who can be identified, directly or
indirectly, in particular by reference to an identification number or to one or more factors
specific to his physical, physiological, mental, economic, cultural or social identity;
(b) 'processing of personal data' ('processing') shall mean any operation or set of operations
which is performed upon personal data, whether or not by automatic means, such as
collection, recording, organization, storage, adaptation or alteration, retrieval, consultation,
use, disclosure by transmission, dissemination or otherwise making available, alignment or
combination, blocking, erasure or destruction;
(c) 'personal data filing system' ('filing system') shall mean any structured set of personal data
which are accessible according to specific criteria, whether centralized, decentralized or
dispersed on a functional or geographical basis;
(d) 'controller' shall mean the natural or legal person, public authority, agency or any other
body which alone or jointly with others determines the purposes and means of the processing
of personal data; where the purposes and means of processing are determined by national or
Community laws or regulations, the controller or the specific criteria for his nomination may
be designated by national or Community law;
(e) 'processor' shall mean a natural or legal person, public authority, agency or any other body
which processes personal data on behalf of the controller;
(f) 'third party' shall mean any natural or legal person, public authority, agency or any other
body other than the data subject, the controller, the processor and the persons who, under the
direct authority of the controller or the processor, are authorized to process the data;

(g) 'recipient' shall mean a natural or legal person, public authority, agency or any other body
to whom data are disclosed, whether a third party or not; however, authorities which may
receive data in the framework of a particular inquiry shall not be regarded as recipients;
(h) 'the data subject's consent' shall mean any freely given specific and informed indication of
his wishes by which the data subject signifies his agreement to personal data relating to him
being processed.
Article 3
Scope
1. This Directive shall apply to the processing of personal data wholly or partly by automatic
means, and to the processing otherwise than by automatic means of personal data which form
part of a filing system or are intended to form part of a filing system.
2. This Directive shall not apply to the processing of personal data:
- in the course of an activity which falls outside the scope of Community law, such as those
provided for by Titles V and VI of the Treaty on European Union and in any case to
processing operations concerning public security, defence, State security (including the
economic well-being of the State when the processing operation relates to State security
matters) and the activities of the State in areas of criminal law,
- by a natural person in the course of a purely personal or household activity.
Article 4
National law applicable
1. Each Member State shall apply the national provisions it adopts pursuant to this Directive
to the processing of personal data where:
(a) the processing is carried out in the context of the activities of an establishment of the
controller on the territory of the Member State; when the same controller is established on the
territory of several Member States, he must take the necessary measures to ensure that each of
these establishments complies with the obligations laid down by the national law applicable;
(b) the controller is not established on the Member State's territory, but in a place where its
national law applies by virtue of international public law;
(c) the controller is not established on Community territory and, for purposes of processing
personal data makes use of equipment, automated or otherwise, situated on the territory of the
said Member State, unless such equipment is used only for purposes of transit through the
territory of the Community.

2. In the circumstances referred to in paragraph 1 (c), the controller must designate a
representative established in the territory of that Member State, without prejudice to legal
actions which could be initiated against the controller himself.
CHAPTER II GENERAL RULES ON THE LAWFULNESS OF THE PROCESSING OF
PERSONAL DATA
Article 5
Member States shall, within the limits of the provisions of this Chapter, determine more
precisely the conditions under which the processing of personal data is lawful.
Article 6
SECTION I
PRINCIPLES RELATING TO DATA QUALITY
1. Member States shall provide that personal data must be:
(a) processed fairly and lawfully;
(b) collected for specified, explicit and legitimate purposes and not further processed in a way
incompatible with those purposes. Further processing of data for historical, statistical or
scientific purposes shall not be considered as incompatible provided that Member States
provide appropriate safeguards;
(c) adequate, relevant and not excessive in relation to the purposes for which they are
collected and/or further processed;
(d) accurate and, where necessary, kept up to date; every reasonable step must be taken to
ensure that data which are inaccurate or incomplete, having regard to the purposes for which
they were collected or for which they are further processed, are erased or rectified;
(e) kept in a form which permits identification of data subjects for no longer than is necessary
for the purposes for which the data were collected or for which they are further processed.
Member States shall lay down appropriate safeguards for personal data stored for longer
periods for historical, statistical or scientific use.
2. It shall be for the controller to ensure that paragraph 1 is complied with.
SECTION II

Article 7
CRITERIA FOR MAKING DATA PROCESSING LEGITIMATE
Member States shall provide that personal data may be processed only if:
(a) the data subject has unambiguously given his consent; or
(b) processing is necessary for the performance of a contract to which the data subject is party
or in order to take steps at the request of the data subject prior to entering into a contract; or
(c) processing is necessary for compliance with a legal obligation to which the controller is
subject; or
(d) processing is necessary in order to protect the vital interests of the data subject; or
(e) processing is necessary for the performance of a task carried out in the public interest or in
the exercise of official authority vested in the controller or in a third party to whom the data
are disclosed; or
(f) processing is necessary for the purposes of the legitimate interests pursued by the
controller or by the third party or parties to whom the data are disclosed, except where such
interests are overridden by the interests for fundamental rights and freedoms of the data
subject which require protection under Article 1 (1).
Article 8
The processing of special categories of data
SECTION III
SPECIAL CATEGORIES OF PROCESSING
1. Member States shall prohibit the processing of personal data revealing racial or ethnic
origin, political opinions, religious or philosophical beliefs, trade-union membership, and the
processing of data concerning health or sex life.
2. Paragraph 1 shall not apply where:
(a) the data subject has given his explicit consent to the processing of those data, except where
the laws of the Member State provide that the prohibition referred to in paragraph 1 may not
be lifted by the data subject's giving his consent; or

(b) processing is necessary for the purposes of carrying out the obligations and specific rights
of the controller in the field of employment law in so far as it is authorized by national law
providing for adequate safeguards; or
(c) processing is necessary to protect the vital interests of the data subject or of another person
where the data subject is physically or legally incapable of giving his consent; or
(d) processing is carried out in the course of its legitimate activities with appropriate
guarantees by a foundation, association or any other non-profit-seeking body with a political,
philosophical, religious or trade-union aim and on condition that the processing relates solely
to the members of the body or to persons who have regular contact with it in connection with
its purposes and that the data are not disclosed to a third party without the consent of the data
subjects; or
(e) the processing relates to data which are manifestly made public by the data subject or is
necessary for the establishment, exercise or defence of legal claims.
3. Paragraph 1 shall not apply where processing of the data is required for the purposes of
preventive medicine, medical diagnosis, the provision of care or treatment or the management
of health-care services, and where those data are processed by a health professional subject
under national law or rules established by national competent bodies to the obligation of
professional secrecy or by another person also subject to an equivalent obligation of secrecy.
4. Subject to the provision of suitable safeguards, Member States may, for reasons of
substantial public interest, lay down exemptions in addition to those laid down in paragraph 2
either by national law or by decision of the supervisory authority.
5. Processing of data relating to offences, criminal convictions or security measures may be
carried out only under the control of official authority, or if suitable specific safeguards are
provided under national law, subject to derogations which may be granted by the Member
State under national provisions providing suitable specific safeguards. However, a complete
register of criminal convictions may be kept only under the control of official authority.
Member States may provide that data relating to administrative sanctions or judgements in
civil cases shall also be processed under the control of official authority.
6. Derogations from paragraph 1 provided for in paragraphs 4 and 5 shall be notified to the
Commission.
7. Member States shall determine the conditions under which a national identification number
or any other identifier of general application may be processed.
Article 9
Processing of personal data and freedom of expression
Member States shall provide for exemptions or derogations from the provisions of this
Chapter, Chapter IV and Chapter VI for the processing of personal data carried out solely for

journalistic purposes or the purpose of artistic or literary expression only if they are necessary
to reconcile the right to privacy with the rules governing freedom of expression.
Article 10
SECTION IV
INFORMATION TO BE GIVEN TO THE DATA SUBJECT
Information in cases of collection of data from the data subject
Member States shall provide that the controller or his representative must provide a data
subject from whom data relating to himself are collected with at least the following
information, except where he already has it:
(a) the identity of the controller and of his representative, if any;
(b) the purposes of the processing for which the data are intended;
(c) any further information such as
- the recipients or categories of recipients of the data,
- whether replies to the questions are obligatory or voluntary, as well as the possible
consequences of failure to reply,
- the existence of the right of access to and the right to rectify the data concerning him
in so far as such further information is necessary, having regard to the specific circumstances
in which the data are collected, to guarantee fair processing in respect of the data subject.
Article 11
Information where the data have not been obtained from the data subject
1. Where the data have not been obtained from the data subject, Member States shall provide
that the controller or his representative must at the time of undertaking the recording of
personal data or if a disclosure to a third party is envisaged, no later than the time when the
data are first disclosed provide the data subject with at least the following information, except
where he already has it:
(a) the identity of the controller and of his representative, if any;
(b) the purposes of the processing;

(c) any further information such as
- the categories of data concerned,
- the recipients or categories of recipients,
- the existence of the right of access to and the right to rectify the data concerning him
in so far as such further information is necessary, having regard to the specific circumstances
in which the data are processed, to guarantee fair processing in respect of the data subject.
2. Paragraph 1 shall not apply where, in particular for processing for statistical purposes or for
the purposes of historical or scientific research, the provision of such information proves
impossible or would involve a disproportionate effort or if recording or disclosure is expressly
laid down by law. In these cases Member States shall provide appropriate safeguards.
Article 12
Right of access
SECTION V
THE DATA SUBJECT'S RIGHT OF ACCESS TO DATA
Member States shall guarantee every data subject the right to obtain from the controller:
(a) without constraint at reasonable intervals and without excessive delay or expense:
- confirmation as to whether or not data relating to him are being processed and information at
least as to the purposes of the processing, the categories of data concerned, and the recipients
or categories of recipients to whom the data are disclosed,
- communication to him in an intelligible form of the data undergoing processing and of any
available information as to their source,
- knowledge of the logic involved in any automatic processing of data concerning him at least
in the case of the automated decisions referred to in Article 15 (1);
(b) as appropriate the rectification, erasure or blocking of data the processing of which does
not comply with the provisions of this Directive, in particular because of the incomplete or
inaccurate nature of the data;
(c) notification to third parties to whom the data have been disclosed of any rectification,
erasure or blocking carried out in compliance with (b), unless this proves impossible or
involves a disproportionate effort.

Article 13
Exemptions and restrictions
SECTION VI
EXEMPTIONS AND RESTRICTIONS
1. Member States may adopt legislative measures to restrict the scope of the obligations and
rights provided for in Articles 6 (1), 10, 11 (1), 12 and 21 when such a restriction constitutes a
necessary measures to safeguard:
(a) national security;
(b) defence;
(c) public security;
(d) the prevention, investigation, detection and prosecution of criminal offences, or of
breaches of ethics for regulated professions;
(e) an important economic or financial interest of a Member State or of the European Union,
including monetary, budgetary and taxation matters;
(f) a monitoring, inspection or regulatory function connected, even occasionally, with the
exercise of official authority in cases referred to in (c), (d) and (e);
(g) the protection of the data subject or of the rights and freedoms of others.
2. Subject to adequate legal safeguards, in particular that the data are not used for taking
measures or decisions regarding any particular individual, Member States may, where there is
clearly no risk of breaching the privacy of the data subject, restrict by a legislative measure
the rights provided for in Article 12 when data are processed solely for purposes of scientific
research or are kept in personal form for a period which does not exceed the period necessary
for the sole purpose of creating statistics.
Article 14
SECTION VII
THE DATA SUBJECT'S RIGHT TO OBJECT

The data subject's right to object
Member States shall grant the data subject the right:
(a) at least in the cases referred to in Article 7 (e) and (f), to object at any time on compelling
legitimate grounds relating to his particular situation to the processing of data relating to him,
save where otherwise provided by national legislation. Where there is a justified objection, the
processing instigated by the controller may no longer involve those data;
(b) to object, on request and free of charge, to the processing of personal data relating to him
which the controller anticipates being processed for the purposes of direct marketing, or to be
informed before personal data are disclosed for the first time to third parties or used on their
behalf for the purposes of direct marketing, and to be expressly offered the right to object free
of charge to such disclosures or uses.
Member States shall take the necessary measures to ensure that data subjects are aware of the
existence of the right referred to in the first subparagraph of (b).
Article 15
Automated individual decisions
1. Member States shall grant the right to every person not to be subject to a decision which
produces legal effects concerning him or significantly affects him and which is based solely
on automated processing of data intended to evaluate certain personal aspects relating to him,
such as his performance at work, creditworthiness, reliability, conduct, etc.
2. Subject to the other Articles of this Directive, Member States shall provide that a person
may be subjected to a decision of the kind referred to in paragraph 1 if that decision:
(a) is taken in the course of the entering into or performance of a contract, provided the
request for the entering into or the performance of the contract, lodged by the data subject, has
been satisfied or that there are suitable measures to safeguard his legitimate interests, such as
arrangements allowing him to put his point of view; or
(b) is authorized by a law which also lays down measures to safeguard the data subject's
legitimate interests.
Article 16
SECTION VIII
CONFIDENTIALITY AND SECURITY OF PROCESSING

Confidentiality of processing
Any person acting under the authority of the controller or of the processor, including the
processor himself, who has access to personal data must not process them except on
instructions from the controller, unless he is required to do so by law.
Article 17
Security of processing
1. Member States shall provide that the controller must implement appropriate technical and
organizational measures to protect personal data against accidental or unlawful destruction or
accidental loss, alteration, unauthorized disclosure or access, in particular where the
processing involves the transmission of data over a network, and against all other unlawful
forms of processing.
Having regard to the state of the art and the cost of their implementation, such measures shall
ensure a level of security appropriate to the risks represented by the processing and the nature
of the data to be protected.
2. The Member States shall provide that the controller must, where processing is carried out
on his behalf, choose a processor providing sufficient guarantees in respect of the technical
security measures and organizational measures governing the processing to be carried out, and
must ensure compliance with those measures.
3. The carrying out of processing by way of a processor must be governed by a contract or
legal act binding the processor to the controller and stipulating in particular that:
- the processor shall act only on instructions from the controller,
- the obligations set out in paragraph 1, as defined by the law of the Member State in which
the processor is established, shall also be incumbent on the processor.
4. For the purposes of keeping proof, the parts of the contract or the legal act relating to data
protection and the requirements relating to the measures referred to in paragraph 1 shall be in
writing or in another equivalent form.
Article 18
Obligation to notify the supervisory authority
SECTION IX
NOTIFICATION

1. Member States shall provide that the controller or his representative, if any, must notify the
supervisory authority referred to in Article 28 before carrying out any wholly or partly
automatic processing operation or set of such operations intended to serve a single purpose or
several related purposes.
2. Member States may provide for the simplification of or exemption from notification only in
the following cases and under the following conditions:
- where, for categories of processing operations which are unlikely, taking account of the data
to be processed, to affect adversely the rights and freedoms of data subjects, they specify the
purposes of the processing, the data or categories of data undergoing processing, the category
or categories of data subject, the recipients or categories of recipient to whom the data are to
be disclosed and the length of time the data are to be stored, and/or
- where the controller, in compliance with the national law which governs him, appoints a
personal data protection official, responsible in particular:
- for ensuring in an independent manner the internal application of the national provisions
taken pursuant to this Directive
- for keeping the register of processing operations carried out by the controller, containing the
items of information referred to in Article 21 (2),
thereby ensuring that the rights and freedoms of the data subjects are unlikely to be adversely
affected by the processing operations.
3. Member States may provide that paragraph 1 does not apply to processing whose sole
purpose is the keeping of a register which according to laws or regulations is intended to
provide information to the public and which is open to consultation either by the public in
general or by any person demonstrating a legitimate interest.
4. Member States may provide for an exemption from the obligation to notify or a
simplification of the notification in the case of processing operations referred to in Article 8
(2) (d).
5. Member States may stipulate that certain or all non-automatic processing operations
involving personal data shall be notified, or provide for these processing operations to be
subject to simplified notification.
Article 19
Contents of notification
1. Member States shall specify the information to be given in the notification. It shall include
at least:
(a) the name and address of the controller and of his representative, if any;

(b) the purpose or purposes of the processing;
(c) a description of the category or categories of data subject and of the data or categories of
data relating to them;
(d) the recipients or categories of recipient to whom the data might be disclosed;
(e) proposed transfers of data to third countries;
(f) a general description allowing a preliminary assessment to be made of the appropriateness
of the measures taken pursuant to Article 17 to ensure security of processing.
2. Member States shall specify the procedures under which any change affecting the
information referred to in paragraph 1 must be notified to the supervisory authority.
Article 20
Prior checking
1. Member States shall determine the processing operations likely to present specific risks to
the rights and freedoms of data subjects and shall check that these processing operations are
examined prior to the start thereof.
2. Such prior checks shall be carried out by the supervisory authority following receipt of a
notification from the controller or by the data protection official, who, in cases of doubt, must
consult the supervisory authority.
3. Member States may also carry out such checks in the context of preparation either of a
measure of the national parliament or of a measure based on such a legislative measure, which
define the nature of the processing and lay down appropriate safeguards.
Article 21
Publicizing of processing operations
1. Member States shall take measures to ensure that processing operations are publicized.
2. Member States shall provide that a register of processing operations notified in accordance
with Article 18 shall be kept by the supervisory authority.
The register shall contain at least the information listed in Article 19 (1) (a) to (e).
The register may be inspected by any person.
3. Member States shall provide, in relation to processing operations not subject to notification,
that controllers or another body appointed by the Member States make available at least the

information referred to in Article 19 (1) (a) to (e) in an appropriate form to any person on
request.
Member States may provide that this provision does not apply to processing whose sole
purpose is the keeping of a register which according to laws or regulations is intended to
provide information to the public and which is open to consultation either by the public in
general or by any person who can provide proof of a legitimate interest.
Article 22
Remedies
CHAPTER III
JUDICIAL REMEDIES, LIABILITY AND SANCTIONS
Without prejudice to any administrative remedy for which provision may be made, inter alia
before the supervisory authority referred to in Article 28, prior to referral to the judicial
authority, Member States shall provide for the right of every person to a judicial remedy for
any breach of the rights guaranteed him by the national law applicable to the processing in
question.
Article 23
Liability
1. Member States shall provide that any person who has suffered damage as a result of an
unlawful processing operation or of any act incompatible with the national provisions adopted
pursuant to this Directive is entitled to receive compensation from the controller for the
damage suffered.
2. The controller may be exempted from this liability, in whole or in part, if he proves that he
is not responsible for the event giving rise to the damage.
Article 24
Sanctions
The Member States shall adopt suitable measures to ensure the full implementation of the
provisions of this Directive and shall in particular lay down the sanctions to be imposed in
case of infringement of the provisions adopted pursuant to this Directive.

Article 25
Principles
CHAPTER IV
TRANSFER OF PERSONAL DATA TO THIRD COUNTRIES
1. The Member States shall provide that the transfer to a third country of personal data which
are undergoing processing or are intended for processing after transfer may take place only if,
without prejudice to compliance with the national provisions adopted pursuant to the other
provisions of this Directive, the third country in question ensures an adequate level of
protection.
2. The adequacy of the level of protection afforded by a third country shall be assessed in the
light of all the circumstances surrounding a data transfer operation or set of data transfer
operations; particular consideration shall be given to the nature of the data, the purpose and
duration of the proposed processing operation or operations, the country of origin and country
of final destination, the rules of law, both general and sectoral, in force in the third country in
question and the professional rules and security measures which are complied with in that
country.
3. The Member States and the Commission shall inform each other of cases where they
consider that a third country does not ensure an adequate level of protection within the
meaning of paragraph 2.
4. Where the Commission finds, under the procedure provided for in Article 31 (2), that a
third country does not ensure an adequate level of protection within the meaning of paragraph
2 of this Article, Member States shall take the measures necessary to prevent any transfer of
data of the same type to the third country in question.
5. At the appropriate time, the Commission shall enter into negotiations with a view to
remedying the situation resulting from the finding made pursuant to paragraph 4.
6. The Commission may find, in accordance with the procedure referred to in Article 31 (2),
that a third country ensures an adequate level of protection within the meaning of paragraph 2
of this Article, by reason of its domestic law or of the international commitments it has
entered into, particularly upon conclusion of the negotiations referred to in paragraph 5, for
the protection of the private lives and basic freedoms and rights of individuals.
Member States shall take the measures necessary to comply with the Commission's decision.
Article 26

Derogations
1. By way of derogation from Article 25 and save where otherwise provided by domestic law
governing particular cases, Member States shall provide that a transfer or a set of transfers of
personal data to a third country which does not ensure an adequate level of protection within
the meaning of Article 25 (2) may take place on condition that:
(a) the data subject has given his consent unambiguously to the proposed transfer; or
(b) the transfer is necessary for the performance of a contract between the data subject and the
controller or the implementation of precontractual measures taken in response to the data
subject's request; or
(c) the transfer is necessary for the conclusion or performance of a contract concluded in the
interest of the data subject between the controller and a third party; or
(d) the transfer is necessary or legally required on important public interest grounds, or for the
establishment, exercise or defence of legal claims; or
(e) the transfer is necessary in order to protect the vital interests of the data subject; or
(f) the transfer is made from a register which according to laws or regulations is intended to
provide information to the public and which is open to consultation either by the public in
general or by any person who can demonstrate legitimate interest, to the extent that the
conditions laid down in law for consultation are fulfilled in the particular case.
2. Without prejudice to paragraph 1, a Member State may authorize a transfer or a set of
transfers of personal data to a third country which does not ensure an adequate level of
protection within the meaning of Article 25 (2), where the controller adduces adequate
safeguards with respect to the protection of the privacy and fundamental rights and freedoms
of individuals and as regards the exercise of the corresponding rights; such safeguards may in
particular result from appropriate contractual clauses.
3. The Member State shall inform the Commission and the other Member States of the
authorizations it grants pursuant to paragraph 2.
If a Member State or the Commission objects on justified grounds involving the protection of
the privacy and fundamental rights and freedoms of individuals, the Commission shall take
appropriate measures in accordance with the procedure laid down in Article 31 (2).
Member States shall take the necessary measures to comply with the Commission's decision.
4. Where the Commission decides, in accordance with the procedure referred to in Article 31
(2), that certain standard contractual clauses offer sufficient safeguards as required by
paragraph 2, Member States shall take the necessary measures to comply with the
Commission's decision.
CHAPTER V

Article 27
CODES OF CONDUCT
1. The Member States and the Commission shall encourage the drawing up of codes of
conduct intended to contribute to the proper implementation of the national provisions
adopted by the Member States pursuant to this Directive, taking account of the specific
features of the various sectors.
2. Member States shall make provision for trade associations and other bodies representing
other categories of controllers which have drawn up draft national codes or which have the
intention of amending or extending existing national codes to be able to submit them to the
opinion of the national authority.
Member States shall make provision for this authority to ascertain, among other things,
whether the drafts submitted to it are in accordance with the national provisions adopted
pursuant to this Directive. If it sees fit, the authority shall seek the views of data subjects or
their representatives.
3. Draft Community codes, and amendments or extensions to existing Community codes, may
be submitted to the Working Party referred to in Article 29. This Working Party shall
determine, among other things, whether the drafts submitted to it are in accordance with the
national provisions adopted pursuant to this Directive. If it sees fit, the authority shall seek the
views of data subjects or their representatives. The Commission may ensure appropriate
publicity for the codes which have been approved by the Working Party.
CHAPTER VI
SUPERVISORY AUTHORITY AND WORKING PARTY ON THE PROTECTION OF
INDIVIDUALS WITH REGARD TO THE PROCESSING OF PERSONAL DATA
Article 28
Supervisory authority
1. Each Member State shall provide that one or more public authorities are responsible for
monitoring the application within its territory of the provisions adopted by the Member States
pursuant to this Directive.
These authorities shall act with complete independence in exercising the functions entrusted
to them.

2. Each Member State shall provide that the supervisory authorities are consulted when
drawing up administrative measures or regulations relating to the protection of individuals'
rights and freedoms with regard to the processing of personal data.
3. Each authority shall in particular be endowed with:
- investigative powers, such as powers of access to data forming the subject-matter of
processing operations and powers to collect all the information necessary for the performance
of its supervisory duties,
- effective powers of intervention, such as, for example, that of delivering opinions before
processing operations are carried out, in accordance with Article 20, and ensuring appropriate
publication of such opinions, of ordering the blocking, erasure or destruction of data, of
imposing a temporary or definitive ban on processing, of warning or admonishing the
controller, or that of referring the matter to national parliaments or other political institutions,
- the power to engage in legal proceedings where the national provisions adopted pursuant to
this Directive have been violated or to bring these violations to the attention of the judicial
authorities.
Decisions by the supervisory authority which give rise to complaints may be appealed against
through the courts.
4. Each supervisory authority shall hear claims lodged by any person, or by an association
representing that person, concerning the protection of his rights and freedoms in regard to the
processing of personal data. The person concerned shall be informed of the outcome of the
claim.
Each supervisory authority shall, in particular, hear claims for checks on the lawfulness of
data processing lodged by any person when the national provisions adopted pursuant to
Article 13 of this Directive apply. The person shall at any rate be informed that a check has
taken place.
5. Each supervisory authority shall draw up a report on its activities at regular intervals. The
report shall be made public.
6. Each supervisory authority is competent, whatever the national law applicable to the
processing in question, to exercise, on the territory of its own Member State, the powers
conferred on it in accordance with paragraph 3. Each authority may be requested to exercise
its powers by an authority of another Member State.
The supervisory authorities shall cooperate with one another to the extent necessary for the
performance of their duties, in particular by exchanging all useful information.
7. Member States shall provide that the members and staff of the supervisory authority, even
after their employment has ended, are to be subject to a duty of professional secrecy with
regard to confidential information to which they have access.

Article 29
Working Party on the Protection of Individuals with regard to the Processing of Personal Data
1. A Working Party on the Protection of Individuals with regard to the Processing of Personal
Data, hereinafter referred to as 'the Working Party', is hereby set up.
It shall have advisory status and act independently.
2. The Working Party shall be composed of a representative of the supervisory authority or
authorities designated by each Member State and of a representative of the authority or
authorities established for the Community institutions and bodies, and of a representative of
the Commission.
Each member of the Working Party shall be designated by the institution, authority or
authorities which he represents. Where a Member State has designated more than one
supervisory authority, they shall nominate a joint representative. The same shall apply to the
authorities established for Community institutions and bodies.
3. The Working Party shall take decisions by a simple majority of the representatives of the
supervisory authorities.
4. The Working Party shall elect its chairman. The chairman's term of office shall be two
years. His appointment shall be renewable.
5. The Working Party's secretariat shall be provided by the Commission.
6. The Working Party shall adopt its own rules of procedure.
7. The Working Party shall consider items placed on its agenda by its chairman, either on his
own initiative or at the request of a representative of the supervisory authorities or at the
Commission's request.
Article 30
1. The Working Party shall:
(a) examine any question covering the application of the national measures adopted under this
Directive in order to contribute to the uniform application of such measures;
(b) give the Commission an opinion on the level of protection in the Community and in third
countries;
(c) advise the Commission on any proposed amendment of this Directive, on any additional or
specific measures to safeguard the rights and freedoms of natural persons with regard to the
processing of personal data and on any other proposed Community measures affecting such
rights and freedoms;

(d) give an opinion on codes of conduct drawn up at Community level.
2. If the Working Party finds that divergences likely to affect the equivalence of protection for
persons with regard to the processing of personal data in the Community are arising between
the laws or practices of Member States, it shall inform the Commission accordingly.
3. The Working Party may, on its own initiative, make recommendations on all matters
relating to the protection of persons with regard to the processing of personal data in the
Community.
4. The Working Party's opinions and recommendations shall be forwarded to the Commission
and to the committee referred to in Article 31.
5. The Commission shall inform the Working Party of the action it has taken in response to its
opinions and recommendations. It shall do so in a report which shall also be forwarded to the
European Parliament and the Council. The report shall be made public.
6. The Working Party shall draw up an annual report on the situation regarding the protection
of natural persons with regard to the processing of personal data in the Community and in
third countries, which it shall transmit to the Commission, the European Parliament and the
Council. The report shall be made public.
Article 31 *
The Committee
CHAPTER VII
COMMUNITY IMPLEMENTING MEASURES
1. The Commission shall be assisted by a committee.
2. Where reference is made to this Article, Articles 4 and 7 of Decision 1999/468/EC ** shall
apply, having regard to the provisions of Article 8 thereof.
The period laid down in Article 4 (3) of Decision 1999/468/EC shall be set at three months.
3. The Committee shall adopt its rules of procedure.
* as amended by the Regulation (EC) No 1882/2003 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 29 September
2003 adapting to Council Decision 1999/468/EC the provisions relating to committees which assist the Commission in
the exercise of its implementing powers laid down in instruments subject to the Procedure referred to in Article 251 of
the EC Treaty (OJ L 284, 31.10.2003).
** Council Decision 1999/468/EC of 28 June 1999 laying down the procedures for the exercise of implementing
powers conferred on the Commission (OJ L 184, 17.7.1999, p. 23).’

Article 32
FINAL PROVISIONS
1. Member States shall bring into force the laws, regulations and administrative provisions
necessary to comply with this Directive at the latest at the end of a period of three years from
the date of its adoption.
When Member States adopt these measures, they shall contain a reference to this Directive or
be accompanied by such reference on the occasion of their official publication. The methods
of making such reference shall be laid down by the Member States.
2. Member States shall ensure that processing already under way on the date the national
provisions adopted pursuant to this Directive enter into force, is brought into conformity with
these provisions within three years of this date.
By way of derogation from the preceding subparagraph, Member States may provide that the
processing of data already held in manual filing systems on the date of entry into force of the
national provisions adopted in implementation of this Directive shall be brought into
conformity with Articles 6, 7 and 8 of this Directive within 12 years of the date on which it is
adopted. Member States shall, however, grant the data subject the right to obtain, at his
request and in particular at the time of exercising his right of access, the rectification, erasure
or blocking of data which are incomplete, inaccurate or stored in a way incompatible with the
legitimate purposes pursued by the controller.
3. By way of derogation from paragraph 2, Member States may provide, subject to suitable
safeguards, that data kept for the sole purpose of historical research need not be brought into
conformity with Articles 6, 7 and 8 of this Directive.
4. Member States shall communicate to the Commission the text of the provisions of domestic
law which they adopt in the field covered by this Directive.
Article 33
The Commission shall report to the Council and the European Parliament at regular intervals,
starting not later than three years after the date referred to in Article 32 (1), on the
implementation of this Directive, attaching to its report, if necessary, suitable proposals for
amendments. The report shall be made public.
The Commission shall examine, in particular, the application of this Directive to the data
processing of sound and image data relating to natural persons and shall submit any
appropriate proposals which prove to be necessary, taking account of developments in
information technology and in the light of the state of progress in the information society.

Article 34
This Directive is addressed to the Member States.
Done at Luxembourg, 24 October 1995.
For the European Parliament
The President
K. HAENSCH
For the Council
The President
L. ATIENZA SERNA
(1) OJ No C 277, 5. 11. 1990, p. 3 and OJ No C 311, 27. 11. 1992, p. 30.
(2) OJ No C 159, 17. 6. 1991, p 38.
(3) Opinion of the European Parliament of 11 March 1992 (OJ No C 94, 13. 4. 1992, p. 198),
confirmed on 2 December 1993 (OJ No C 342, 20. 12. 1993, p. 30); Council common
position of 20 February 1995 (OJ No C 93, 13. 4. 1995, p. 1) and Decision of the European
Parliament of 15 June 1995 (OJ No C 166, 3. 7. 1995).
(1) OJ No L 197, 18. 7. 1987, p. 33.

COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES
Brussels, 2.6.2003
COM(2003) 311 final
COMMUNICATION FROM THE COMMISSION
European Road Safety Action Programme
Halving the number of road accident victims in the
European Union by 2010:
A shared responsibility

COMMUNICATION FROM THE COMMISSION
European Road Safety Action Programme
Halving the number of road accident victims in the
European Union by 2010:
A shared responsibility
TABLE OF CONTENTS
SUMMARY ............................................................................................................................... 5
1. The challenges to be met.............................................................................................. 6
2. Setting the target of reducing the number of road accident victims ............................ 9
2.1. A mobilising target....................................................................................................... 9
2.2. Monitoring the target ................................................................................................. 10
2.2.1. Establishing performance indicators.......................................................................... 10
2.2.2. A mid-term review ..................................................................................................... 10
3. A commitment at all levels to improving road safety................................................ 11
3.1. The role of the European Union................................................................................. 11
3.2. All stakeholders in the transport system are concerned............................................. 11
3.3. Mobilising stakeholders through the establishment of a European Road Safety
Charter........................................................................................................................ 12
4. The means of action available to the European Union .............................................. 13
5. The main areas of action ............................................................................................ 15
5.1. Encouraging road users to improve their behaviour .................................................. 15
5.1.1. Complying with basic road safety rules..................................................................... 15
5.1.2. Driver licensing and training...................................................................................... 19
5.1.3. Use of crash helmets .................................................................................................. 20
5.2. Using technical progress to make vehicles safer........................................................ 21
5.2.1. Progress made on vehicle design ............................................................................... 21
5.2.2. Consumer information: the European New Car Assessment Programme (EuroNCAP)22
5.2.3. Accident protection or passive safety ........................................................................ 22
5.2.4. Accident prevention or active safety.......................................................................... 24
5.2.5. Periodic technical inspection ..................................................................................... 27
2

5.3. Encouraging the improvement of road infrastructure ................................................ 27
5.3.1. Background ................................................................................................................27
5.3.2. Drawing-up of technical guidelines concerning infrastructure safety ....................... 28
5.3.3. Trans-European road network.................................................................................... 29
5.3.4. Safety of tunnels.........................................................................................................29
5.3.5. The new "intelligent road" concept and GALILEO................................................... 30
5.4. Safe commercial goods and passenger transport ....................................................... 31
5.5. Emergency services and care for road accident victims ............................................ 34
5.6. Accident data collection, analysis and dissemination................................................ 35
5.6.1. Background ................................................................................................................35
5.6.2. The causes of accidents.............................................................................................. 35
5.6.3. The circumstances of accidents.................................................................................. 36
5.6.4. The consequences of accidents .................................................................................. 37
5.6.5. European Road Safety Observatory........................................................................... 37
ANNEX 1 Road traffic accidents - Trend in the number of deaths per million inhabitants,
1991-2001 Situation in each Member State (+ EUR-15 average) ........................................... 38
ANNEX 2 European Road Safety Charter............................................................................... 42
3

SUMMARY
– Road safety directly affects all of the territory of the European Union and all its
inhabitants: in the 15-member European Union, 375 million road users, 200 million
of them driving licence holders, use 200 million vehicles on 4 million km of roads.
Ever greater mobility comes at a high price: 1 300 000 accidents a year cause 40 000
deaths and 1 700 000 injuries on the roads. The direct and indirect cost of this
carnage has been estimated at €160 billion, i.e. 2% of EU GNP.
– Although there has been a slow but regular improvement in safety overall (during the
last 30 years, the overall volume of road traffic in the countries which today make up
the EU has tripled, while the number of road deaths has fallen by half), the situation
is still socially unacceptable and difficult to justify to the citizen.
– In its White Paper on European transport policy, 1 the Commission has therefore
proposed that the European Union should set itself the target of halving the number
of road deaths by 2010. Although the Community has contributed to road safety
over very many years, in particular through more than 50 technical standardisation
directives, and despite the fact that the Maastricht Treaty clarified the legal means
available to the Community to establish a framework and to act, 2 the Member States
have been highly reluctant to take action at Community level, witness the
harmonisation of blood alcohol limits which has been under discussion for twelve
years.
– The Commission will propose standardising the rules on checks concerning the road
traffic offences which cause the most deaths and concerning compliance with social
regulations.
– In the context of a proposal on road infrastructure, the Commission propose action to
deal with particularly hazardous places. Another proposal will concern the
recasting of the Directive on driving licences.
– This communication also describes a number of direct and accompanying measures
which the Commission plans to implement to enhance the benefit of the activities
undertaken by the European Union, in particular the development of new safety
technologies under the Research Framework Programmes to add value to the efforts
made by the Member States.
1
2
This action programmes aims to:
– encourage road users to improve their behaviour, in particular through better
compliance with the existing legislation, basic and continuous training for private
and professional drivers and by pursuing efforts to combat dangerous practices,
– make vehicles safer, in particular through technical harmonisation and support for
technical progress; the aspects concerning electronic technologies ("eSafety") will
European transport policy for 2010: Time to decide (COM(2001) 370 final, 12 September 2001).
Article 71 of the Treaty establishing the European Community.
4

e covered by a forthcoming Commission communication on information and
communication technologies for intelligent vehicles".
– improve road infrastructure, in particular by defining best practices and
disseminating them at the local level and by eliminating accident black spots.
– It describes in particular specific measures for establishing a methodological
framework to identify and disseminate best practices, through the drafting of
technical guides, improving the collection and analysis of data on accidents and
physical injuries, and pursuing research and development to find solutions for the
future.
– The Commission hopes that everyone concerned will sign up to and cooperate in the
programme in question. To this end, it proposes that everyone in authority, with
decision-making powers, or acting in an economic, social or representative function
should give a solemn undertakings and subscribe to a European Road Safety
Charter. Apart from complying with universal principles, each signatory would
undertake to implement specific actions. The commitments given will be publicised
and compliance with them monitored.
5

1. THE CHALLENGES TO BE MET
Each year, more than 40 000 people die in the European Union (EUR-15) as a result of road
accidents and 1 700 000 are injured. These accidents are the main cause of death in the
under-45 age group and cause more deaths than heart disease or cancer in that group. The
total cost to society has been estimated at more than €160 billion a year, which corresponds to
2% of EU GNP - an exorbitant price to pay given that relatively straightforward solutions
which would be acceptable to the public are not used.
Number
of people killed
400
350
300
250
200
150
100
50
1970 1980 1990 2000
Figure 1a: Road accidents: Number of people killed per million inhabitants in each Member
State, 1970-2000
6
year
(More detailed data, covering the last decade, are given in Annex 1)
Sources: CARE and national data
B
DK
D
EL
E
F
IRL
I
L
NL
A
P
FIN
S
UK

Number of people killed
400
350
300
250
200
150
100
229
181
7
155
108
50
1970 1980 1990 2000
Figure 1b : Road accidents number of people killed per million inhabitants, EUR-15, trend
1970-2000
Improvements in road safety are understandably therefore one of the European citizen's
greatest expectations. In order to meet this expectation, the Commission announced in its
White Paper of 12 September 2001 3 that it would establish a targeted action programme
containing a set of measures to be implemented by 2010.
In order to be effective, these measures need to be coherent and coordinated with measures
taken at other levels of responsibility. The Commission has consulted the parties concerned to
identify the measures which are likely to produce the best results. These consultations show
that there is a broad trend in favour of developing a European action programme. In
Resolutions adopted in 2000 and 2001, 4 the Council and the European Parliament have also
confirmed the importance of adopting ambitious measures at European level to combat the
scourge of road accidents.
In the past, there has been an enormous gap between the Member States' ambitious
declarations of intent and the very modest provisions actually adopted, the principle of
subsidiarity too often being invoked as a means of avoiding the adoption of specific measures
at EU level. The Commission intends to apply the principle of subsidiarity in a strict manner
so that everyone concerned, at all levels, can have a clearly identified framework of action in
order to be able to play a full part.
All the Member States are faced with the same road safety problems. The main causes of
accidents have been clearly defined:
3
4
European transport policy for 2010: Time to decide (COM(2001) 370 final, 12 September 2001).
Council Resolution of 26 June 2000 on the improvement of road safety (OJ C 218, 31.7.2000, p.1);
European Parliament Resolution of 18 January 2001 on road safety (Hedkvist-Petersen Report, OJ C
262, 18.9.2001, p.236).

– Excessive and improper speed, the cause of about a third of fatal and serious
accidents and a major factor in determining the severity of injuries.
– The consumption of alcohol and drugs or fatigue. Drinking and driving is responsible
for about 10 000 deaths each year. The problems of driving under the influence of
drugs and fatigue are also increasing.
– Failure to wear a seat belt or crash helmet is a major aggravating factor in accidents.
If the rate of seat-belt use could be increased everywhere to the best international
rate, more than 7 000 lives would be saved each year.
– The lack of sufficient protection provided by vehicles in the event of an impact.
Analysis of accidents shows that, if all cars were designed to provide protection
equivalent to that of the best cars in the same class in the event of an accident, half of
fatal and disabling injuries could be avoided.
– High-risk accident sites (black spots). Roadside design and street furniture can also
play an essential part in reducing injuries in the event of a collision and may have a
positive impact on behaviour.
– Non-compliance with driving and rest times by professional drivers.
– Poor visibility of other users or an insufficient field of vision for the driver. The lack
of visibility in the blind spot towards the rear of vehicles alone causes 500 deaths a
year.
Consequently, many of the road safety improvements proposed by the Commission could be
achieved simply by complying with existing rules. 5
It should also be mentioned that certain groups are particularly affected by road safety issues:
young people between 15 and 24; 6 vulnerable users; 7 and the elderly 8 , in particular
pedestrians.
There are also the challenges which arise as the result of the forthcoming enlargement of the
EU. In most of the new Member States road safety has evolved atypically on account, in
particular, of the political, social and economic upheavals at the beginning of the last decade.
As a general rule, the road safety situation at present is not as good as in the present EUR-15.
Adjusted to the population level, the number of people killed and injured is not higher, but the
respective ratios are deceptive since they do not take account of the number of vehicles on the
road or the volume of traffic, both of which are much lower. The risk exposure factors are
therefore much greater. It will therefore be necessary to monitor the situation carefully, and
the likelihood of the number of vehicles on the road and traffic levels increasing in these
countries over the next few years will create a need for drastic measures to avoid an automatic
increase in the number of road victims.
5
6
7
8
See paragraph 2.1 below.
About 10 000 killed each year - fatal injuries on the roads are the main cause of death in this age group.
In the European Union, pedestrians, cyclists, and moped and motorcycle riders account for more than a
third of people killed on the roads: 7061 pedestrians, 3673 motorcycle riders, 2477 moped riders and
1818 cyclists in 2000 (Sources: CARE and national publications). The number of motorcycle riders
killed is increasing in some Member States.
The risk of serious or fatal injuries in the event of an accident in particularly high in the case of the
elderly, and the ageing population over the next decade needs to be considered.
8

2. SETTING THE TARGET OF REDUCING THE NUMBER OF ROAD ACCIDENT VICTIMS
2.1. A mobilising target
In its White Paper on European Transport Policy, the Commission proposed that the European
Union should set itself the ambitious target of halving the number of road deaths by 2010.
The Commission is fully aware that this means giving much greater priority to implementing
the most effective measures at Community, national and local level.
However, only the European Parliament has so far endorsed this objective, and the Council
has not committed itself.
Such an objective constitutes a serious collective undertaking to reduce the number of deaths
rather than a legal requirement. Given that responsibilities for road safety are shared between
different levels of government, it is not possible to rely solely on activities carried out by the
European Union to achieve this target. The main aim is to provide the motivation for
launching shared activities and to stimulate these activities at all levels of action.
The Member States with the best road safety records, such as Sweden, the United Kingdom
and the Netherlands, were the first to set quantified targets to reduce the number of victims to
derive maximum benefit from potential improvements in road safety from increased
knowledge, accumulated experience and technical progress. It is broadly accepted that
targeted road safety programmes are more beneficial in terms of effectiveness of action, the
rational use of public resources and reductions in the number of people killed and injured
than non-targeted programmes.
2.2. Monitoring the target
2.2.1. Establishing performance indicators
The target will have to be monitored periodically to verify the progress made, and will have to
be reviewed when the new Member States join.
The use of performance indicators makes it possible to target actions in key areas
systematically and to monitor implementation. These may concern particular groups of road
users, such as children, new drivers and professional drivers, or compliance with important
safety rules such as the wearing of a seat belt, or cover specific areas such as the urban road
network, country roads or the trans-European network. Performance indicators for speed,
drinking and driving, the use of restraint systems and safety devices, and numbers of roadside
checks are already used in some Member States, and these could therefore be used in the first
instance. The following stage would require the adoption of indicators in areas relating to the
management of road network standards, the number of vehicles on the road and the
emergency services in order to monitor progress made.
2.2.2. A mid-term review
A statistical report will be produced at regular intervals for the European Institutions and the
public based on the statistics and performance indicators, which will make it possible to
monitor the progress made in implementing this action programme and to analyse the trends
with regard to safety levels.
The Commission will carry out a mid-term review in 2005 on the basis of the conclusions of
its monitoring group. On that occasion it will assess the implications of the enlargement of
9

European Union on road safety. The Commission reserves the right, on the basis of the
review, to propose regulatory measures.
� Reduce the number of road deaths by 50% by 2010.
� Evaluate the progress made, compared with the target, by means of appropriate performance
indicators at Community and national level.
� Provide a report in 2005 on monitoring of the target, action carried out and modifications needed as
a result of enlargement and, where appropriate, propose new measures.
3. A COMMITMENT AT ALL LEVELS TO IMPROVING ROAD SAFETY
3.1. The role of the European Union
With a single transport market and road travel rapidly expanding, a systematic approach is
needed to reduce the high costs of road accidents and the inequalities between Member States.
This approach will call for coordinated action, focused on common objectives, covering the
local, regional, national and Community levels. Joint action is warranted to deal with common
road safety issues, to raise greater awareness and to implement the most effective measures at
the different levels.
Most accidents are due to human error, failure to observe driving rules, and poor
understanding or insufficient control of the vehicle. Since human beings frequently and
inevitably make mistakes, the system of infrastructure, vehicles and drivers should be
gradually adapted to protect users more effectively against their own shortcomings. This is the
approach in other modes of transport and safety at work. Failure to comply with driving rules
should be dealt with both by introducing measures to improve checks and the enforcement of
effective, proportionate and dissuasive penalties at EU level and by developing technologies
which make it difficult or impossible to commit the most serious driving offences.
The White Paper referred to above stresses two essential points as regards the Community's
role in the field of road safety:
– firstly, its long-standing contribution in the context of the establishment of an
internal EU market without unfair competition,
– the legal means provided by the Maastricht Treaty which enables the Commission to
establish a framework and to take measures.
Improving the safety of the movement of passengers and goods is one of the European
Union's key tasks. An EU road safety programme complying with the principle of subsidiarity
will provide a clear framework of action for all parties concerned and will guide the European
Union's activities in fields in which it can provide a high level of added value.
Promoting greater awareness and understanding among the general public, policy makers and
the media about how to make safer use of roads and the transport system must be at the heart
of the Community's road safety policy.
10

3.2. All stakeholders in the transport system are concerned
Meeting the challenge of increasing road safety will necessitate a shift in thinking amongst
both those with responsibility for the traffic system and users about how people use the roads
and how they can be used safely.
Action to boost the wearing of seat belts provides a good illustration of the interdependence
of different road safety measures and stakeholders and the need for interaction at all levels of
government, whether local, regional, national or EU, as well as the private sector, to ensure
effective protection (see Table 1 below).
European Union
National level
Regional/local
level
Private sector
- rules on the mandatory fitting and use of equipment
- rules to improve checks and the application of penalties to car drivers
- performance standards for safety belts and restraints
- support for the launching of an EU programme to evaluate the restraint systems on the market
- a framework and support for campaigns to promote seat belt use
- monitoring of the incorporation of Community legislation by the Member States into their national law
- implementation of EU rules
- setting exemptions
- setting national compliance objectives
- securing compliance through resources for police enforcement
- targeted national information
- monitoring of seat belt use
- encouraging seat belt use policies in the public and private sectors
- support for child restraint loan schemes
- police enforcement and publicity
- seat belt information in schools
- encouraging child restraint loan schemes in the local health sector
- seat belt use surveys
- seat belt use survivor clubs
- innovation and initiatives
- development and marketing of more efficient restraint systems, in response to evaluation campaigns
- installation of non-compulsory restraint devices
- reduced insurance premiums for users of equipped vehicles
- campaigns at company level for the workforce
Table 1: Action needed to increase seat belt use
It will take time and will need a stepwise approach to motivate everyone concerned with road
safety in the framework of an ambitious plan. Concerted action will continue to be necessary
well beyond 2010. It will have to include well-tried measures and be capable of providing
new momentum for all parties concerned.
3.3. Mobilising stakeholders through the establishment of a European Road Safety
Charter
Going beyond subsidiarity and to boost political action, make it coherent and stimulate the
emergence of projects, all stakeholders (transport companies, vehicle and parts manufacturers,
insurance companies and infrastructure operators, local and regional authorities) should give a
11

formal undertaking that they will cooperate and try, collectively and individually, to obtain
maximum effectiveness by subscribing to a European Road Safety Charter. 9
The Charter contains a common part, but will also have to include specific commitments for
each signatory. Each signatory's name and the specific commitments it has made under the
Charter will be made public. 10 It will initially be valid for three years, after which it can be
renewed.
Commitments given will have to be complied with strictly and continuously. Signatories will
have to report how they have fulfilled their commitments and will agree to be monitored for
this purpose during the period of validity of the Charter.
� Invite all parties concerned to sign a European Road Safety Charter.
� Monitor compliance with the commitments given by signatories.
4. THE MEANS OF ACTION AVAILABLE TO THE EUROPEAN UNION
The European Union has a number of ways in which it can act on road safety.
� Article 71 of the EC Treaty allows the European Union to legislate to adopt measures to
improve transport safety, within the limitations of subsidiarity. It has established
competence in several areas such as seat belt use in cars, the periodic technical inspection
of motor vehicles, roadside checks, tachographs, speed governors, the weights and
dimensions of vehicles, the transportation of hazardous goods, driving licences and certain
aspects of driver training. It has more than one competence in some areas, such as the
technical harmonisation of vehicle standards where it is required to ensure a high level of
protection (Article 95 of the Treaty). It may lay down safety requirements for the
trans-European road network. 11 The legislation will have to be adjusted to achieve the
Community's road safety objective and to take account of the technical progress made in
the areas covered. 12 Articles 151 and 152 (health and consumer protection) also allow the
EU to take action in this connection.
The establishment of the internal market has made it possible, in particular through technical
standardisation, to develop safer car parts thanks to a total of more than 50 directives:
provisions requiring the fitting of laminated-glass windscreens to all vehicles, the installation
of safety belts for all passengers, standardised side and front protection, the standardisation
of braking systems.
In addition, the EU has legislated on compulsory seat belt use, the transportation of
hazardous goods, the use of speed governors in lorries, standardised driving licences and the
technical inspection of all vehicles.
� The European Union has financial means which enable it, through targeted calls for
proposals, to support initiatives to generate a higher sense of awareness among policy
9
10
11
12
The text of the European Road Safety Charter is given in Annex 2.
On the “Europa” website.
In accordance with European Parliament and Council Decision 1692/96/EC of the of 23 July 1996 on
Community guidelines for the development of the trans-European transport network (OJ L 228,
9.9.1996, p.1).
See Chapter 5 below.
12

makers, professionals and the public at large about the main safety issues and the solutions
required. It can, for example, grant financial support to consumer information programmes
such as the EuroNCAP programme. 13
� The European Union has so far played an important part in the establishment and
dissemination of best practices (for example, as regards the introduction of reflective
number plates and the development of crash barriers which are safer for motorcyclists),
and it is planned to extend this activity further still. For the systematic introduction of these
activities in all fields, the Commission will establish a reference framework to promote
best practices among safety professionals. The aim will be to identify and summarise these
best practices and to present them in the form of guidelines drawn up by professionals for
professionals, to be used on a voluntary basis, together with detailed case studies.
Guidelines could be drawn up on road safety planning, infrastructure safety and the
reliability of information, the securing of heavy loads and roadside checks. Following this,
the Community will support demonstration projects which will put into practice the
methods developed during the preparation of the guidelines.
� The collection and analysis of data on accidents and physical injuries is essential to be
able to make an objective evaluation of road safety problems, to identify the priority fields
of action and to monitor the effects of the measures. At a later stage, the data should make
it possible to quantify the benefits achieved through the new technologies. The European
Union has played an active part in the definition of accident investigation methods
(STAIRS project) and the creation of the CARE database. 14 These activities now need to
be expanded and entered into in more detail to meet the various expectations (see
paragraph 5.6).
� The definition and evaluation of future policy requires considerable and sustained
research and technological development, against a background of on-going
technological and social change. At the same time, it is essential to translate knowledge
derived from previous research into action which will save human lives. It will be
necessary to strengthen research activities in the field of road safety, in particular in the
context of the Sixth Research Framework Programme, as well as the basic studies,
including socio-economic studies, and demonstration projects.
� The Commission believes that fiscal incentives could be an important way of encouraging
private and business investment and promoting the design of safer infrastructure and
vehicles. The incentives should relate to certain categories of equipment with proven
effectiveness in terms of safety for which it would be difficult to find outlets without
incentives. As with pollution emission standards for vehicles, the Commission will
examine the question of introducing a harmonised framework to clarify the conditions
under which requirements can be introduced by the Member States. At all events, fiscal
incentives must comply with the rules governing the internal market.
� By analysing experience at national level, the Commission will consider how to encourage
the introduction of safety requirements in public service contracts. The Commission
will propose harmonised criteria in calls for tender for public procurement.
13
14
See paragraph 5.2.2 below.
Council Decision No 93/704/EC of 30 November 1993 on the creation of a Community database on
road accidents (OJ L 329, 30.12.1993, p. 63).
13

In 1997 Sweden adopted a road safety programme to combine the efforts of the State, the
regions, the towns, the private sector and individuals to aim to achieve zero deaths and
serious injuries on the road.
In this context, several towns in Sweden have incorporated safety requirements in public
service contracts, in particular for purchases of government vehicles and the provision of
transport services.
� Last, but by no means least, collaboration is needed with the European insurance sector to
try to find new ways of improving road safety, in particular by spreading the costs of
risks associated with accidents causing bodily injuries more fairly, through the
adjustment of insurance premiums.
The importance of the socio-economic aspects of road safety should be stressed. In purely
accounting terms, it is clear that the measures do not all have the same cost-effectiveness
ratio, but even the most expensive ones do have a favourable ratio. A systematic analysis will
help to show the effectiveness of a broad range of measures to improve road safety and
increase investment. The European Union's measures will be based on a quantitative analysis
of their impact in terms of costs and benefits.
� Propose the introduction of harmonised road safety criteria in public service contracts.
� Study, together with the European haulage industry, additional measures which insurers could take
to pass the cost of accident risks on more directly.
5. THE MAIN AREAS OF ACTION
5.1. Encouraging road users to improve their behaviour
5.1.1. Complying with basic road safety rules
� Dangerous driving is a scourge on a par with crime, and the Commission plans, as part of
the Community's justice policy, to take initiatives aimed not just at lorry drivers but at all
motorists.
15
The failure of drivers to comply with basic road safety legislation (relating to drinking and
driving, wearing a seat belt or crash helmet, and speeding) is the main cause of serious
accidents. Action focusing on these three factors could help to meet more than half the
target of halving the number of people killed on the roads. Another appreciable
consequence is that calmer driving can help bring about a significant reduction in fuel
consumption and exhaust emissions.
Studies and research on this subject 15 have shown that, to achieve a significant
improvement in compliance with the rules by road users, an overall approach is needed
which combines police checks with education and awareness campaigns for users.
In the short to medium term, technological innovation relating to vehicles and control
equipment will also help to secure better application of safety rules. The relevant research
For example, the GADGET and ESCAPE projects.
14

on the technological and institutional aspects is supported under the EU's Sixth Research
Framework Programme.
According to a study by the UK Transport Research Laboratory, a reduction in average speed
of 3 km/h would save 5 000 to 6 000 lives each year in Europe, and would avoid 120 000 to
140 000 accidents, producing a saving of €20 billion. According to the UK's observations, the
installation of automatic surveillance cameras reduces average speeds by 9 km/h. If such
cameras were fitted everywhere throughout the European Union, it would be possible to
avoid a third of accidents and halve the number of people killed.
Seminar on "Killing speeds, Saving lives" organised by the Belgian Presidency of the
European Union, 8 November 2001 in Brussels.
� The best performing Member States in terms of road safety also have the most efficient
checking systems. The situation in the other Member States is all the more regrettable,
therefore, especially given the public's expectations in this connection.
16
17
Checks vary considerably from one Member State to another. Car and lorry drivers know
that they must slow down in some countries, but that they can drive in others almost
without impunity. This is shocking since it is easy to drive from one country to another,
and this situation creates distortions of competition in the commercial haulage sector.
To remedy this situation, the Commission will, in 2003, initially propose measures to
increase enforcement of the rules governing the road traffic offences which cause the most
fatalities and the social regulations applicable to the haulage industry.16
In order to estimate the impact of the above proposals, the Commission recently launched
studies to gather basic information on road traffic regulations and their checking and
enforcement in the European Union, and to analyse the costs and benefits of the proposals.
For some measures cost-benefit ratios of 10:1 have been identified.
In this context, the Commission has also established the necessary cooperation with the
Member States, the police authorities (such as TISPOL, the European Road Police
Network) and the inspection authorities (in particular Euro Contrôle Route, the European
transport inspectors' organisation).
As regards matters already dealt with in Community legislation, indictments and the
penalties imposed for infringement of driving rules covered by European Union
legislation, especially regarding the withdrawal of driving licences, differ considerably
from one Member State to another. The Commission believes the Member States should
speed up the application of the 1998 Vienna Convention on decisions relating to the
disqualification of drivers. 17 To contribute to this, the Commission intends to encourage
the establishment of an information network between the competent national driving
licence authorities. More generally, it would be useful to compare the different penalty
mechanisms in force, how they are applied and their effectiveness (benchmarking).
The latter proposal will concern the amendment of Council Directive 88/599/EEC on standard checking
procedures for the application of Regulation (EEC) No 3820/85 on the harmonisation of certain social
legislation relating to road transport and Regulation (EEC) No 3821/85 on recording equipment in road
transport.
Council Act of 17 June 1998 drawing up the Convention on Driving Disqualifications (OJ C 216,
10.7.1998, p.1). To date, only one Member State (Spain) has signed and ratified the Convention.
15

As regards education and awareness campaigns, like the support given in 2001 and 2002
to extend Belgium's "Bob" or "designated driver" campaign to other Member States, the
European Union could support EU information campaigns to raise a sense of awareness
about the consequences of not complying with road safety regulations and about
enforcement. To ensure added value, the Commission will give priority to pan-European
campaigns which fit in with the objectives of this programme and which are integrated into
an existing national activity by police and other authorities. These actions will be aimed in
particular at vulnerable users, young drivers and the elderly.
Belgium has for some years been running a campaign to encourage party-goers to designate
one person, "Bob", to remain sober and to drive everyone home safely. This campaign has
caught the public imagination and more and more people have joined in, with volunteers
offering to drive people home, bars offering non-alcoholic drinks to the person designated as
"Bob", special public services, etc. In 2002, seven countries obtained Commission support to
carry out a joint campaign based on the specifications laid down for the Belgian campaign.
This shows the growing interest of the Member States in applying practices which have been
shown to be successful in other Member States, if necessary adapting them to their own
needs.
To underpin the above package of controls, the Commission will also support specific
campaigns to create a heightened sense of awareness among road users about the three
main causes of road deaths (speeding, drinking and driving and not wearing a seat belt).
The European Office of the Red Cross, an organisation made up of the national Red Cross
societies of the Member States, carried out a road safety awareness campaign in 2002, with
financial support from the Community, targeted at young people in the 15-24 age group. The
independent assessment at the end of the campaign considered it to have been effective and a
success.
� The use of illicit drugs and some medicines, is an increasingly worrying factor in road
accidents, as is the more recent trend towards combining drug-taking with drinking. If
nothing is done urgently, there could soon be more accidents due to drugs than to alcohol.
Different measures will have to be taken to combat this scourge, such as the establishment
of a harmonised procedure to detect illicit drugs in drivers involved in lethal accidents, the
development of detection equipment, adequate training for road traffic police, and the
sharing of results of studies on prevalence, checks and rehabilitation. In 2002 the
Commission launched a joint study 18 with the US Administration to assess the performance
and use of roadside drug-testing equipment. The findings of this study are expected to be
available before 2005. In addition, doctors and pharmacists will also have to be called upon
to play a part by informing patients about the effects of their treatment on driving ability.
The Commission will consider the advisability of the general introduction of appropriate,
harmonised pictograms on medical packagings, based on the European classification of
drugs according to their effects.
Young drivers between 15 and 24 pay a heavy toll in terms of road accidents. Several
unfavourable factors come together in this respect: insufficient experience of driving, a
greater appetite for risk, and an attitude which is less respectful of the rules of the road.
Other factors (fatigue, night-time driving, the use of legal and illegal psychotropic drugs, and
18
ROSITA project – Evaluation of roadside oral fluid tests for the detection of drivers under the influence
of drugs
16

group behaviour) mean that in some Member States car accidents on Friday and Saturday
evenings have become the main cause of death of young people (see Figure 2 below).
As a result of this carnage, more than 2 000 people are killed each year (EUR-15). However,
the example of the United Kingdom shows that this is not inevitable.
number
200
150
100
50
0
0
6 12 18 0
Monday
Source : CARE
European Union*
average for the last five years available
* data for Germany not available
6 12 18 0
Tuesday
6 12 18 0
Wednesday
6 12 18 0
Thursday
17
6 12 18 0
Friday
6 12 18 0
Saturday
6 12
Sunday
18
* time and day
Figure 2: Road deaths among young adults
(Number of people between 18 and 25 killed in road accidents, by time and day – annual
average)
� Propose measures to strengthen checks and ensure the proper enforcement of the most
important safety rules.
� Develop best practice guidelines as regards police checks; collect, compare and publish
information on national highway codes, and on infringements established and penalties
imposed in the various countries.
� Participate in awareness campaigns about drinking and driving, seat belts, speed and
fatigue, if possible combined with national police activities.
� Encourage the take up of the recommendation on the blood alcohol limit, continuation of
work on the effects of drugs and medicines.
� Establish appropriate classification and labelling of medicines which affect driving ability.
� Harmonise, over time, the penalties for the main infringements of the rules of the road for
international hauliers.
5.1.2. Driver licensing and training
Ensuring the safety of all road users is a key objective of driver licensing policies in Europe.
Life-long road user training and information to raise awareness about the risk of road
accidents, the consequences of unsafe behaviour, enforcement legislation and compliance

with key safety rules as well as the need for a sympathetic attitude to effective
countermeasures is a key strand of road safety work.
Driving licence legislation facilitates people's freedom of movement and permits targeted
improvements in driver behaviour, in particular through the driving tests to obtain a driving
licence, the minimum requirements for which have been made much more stringent. 19 The
Commission will consider how to improve the system of stepwise access to different
categories of licences, to avoid the overly flagrant scope for fraud due to the very high
number of licence models which are valid in the EU, and to check that driving ability is
maintained.
The Commission will also take action to set minimum requirements as regards physical and
mental fitness to drive and harmonise ways to enable the competent authorities to apply
tolerances or restrictions to drivers undergoing long-term treatment which may impair their
driving ability.
In Spain and the Netherlands, medical checks show that one driver in ten aged 50, and one
driver in six aged 70, drives with their eyesight not properly corrected.
Greater account also needs to be taken of the specific problems of young drivers and the
elderly as regards driver licensing and road education. Several Member States have
successfully introduced stepwise access, from school age, to different categories of licence,
combining it with specific provisions and continued training. The Commission will consider
ways of emulating this in the EU framework, particularly in an effort to reduce the
excessively high accident risks among young and inexperienced drivers. Several studies have
been carried out in this field with the support of the Commission. 20 The results will enable the
Commission in the near future to draft a recommendation on how to make provisional
licences effective as well as guidelines in these fields.
It is important to continue at the same time with work on rehabilitating people who commit
serious driving offences and on the issues raised by the 1998 Convention on the mutual
recognition of decisions to disqualify drivers (mentioned above). A study on the rehabilitation
programmes which exist in some Member States 21 shows that some of them are remarkably
effective, achieving a 50% reduction in the number of re-offenders. It would therefore seem
promising to link a probationary or points-based licensing scheme to the rehabilitation courses
whereby offenders may seek to have their licences returned after withdrawal. In addition, the
creation of a computerised communications network between authorities responsible for
national driving licence registers should help to reduce the possibility of fraud and to
implement the 1998 Convention.
The lack of monitoring of driver licensing is clearly leading to different types of individual
fraud, in particular involving demands for duplicates and repeating the driving test in another
Member State, as well as organised fraud, especially involving the counterfeiting or copying
of models of driving licence which are very old but are still in circulation and are
unprotected. Apart from the latter aspect of organised fraud, which will also have to be
evaluated from the angle of road safety, the most frequent perpetrators of fraud are also the
drivers who commit most driving offences.
19
20
21
Commission Directive 2000/56/EC of 14 September 2000 amending Council Directive 91/439/EEC on
driving licences (OJ L 237, 21.9.2000, p.45).
DAN, ADVANCED and NOV-EN projects.
ANDREA project.
18

The Commission also intends to come forward in due course with a proposal setting out EUwide
standards for instructor and examiner qualifications, which will improve safety as well
as aiding free movement of services in education and training.
Lastly, the benefits of the promising developments now taking place as regards electronic
driving licences and the use of simulators to learn how to drive and to improve driving will
also be assessed.
� Amend Directive 91/439/EEC on driving licences in order to introduce in particular
minimum standards for car driving examiners and a graduated licensing system to reduce
accident risks among inexperienced drivers.
� Continue work on reviewing, in the light of scientific progress, minimum standards for
physical and mental fitness to drive and study of the impact of medical examinations on
road safety.
� Work towards establishing a scientific approach to learning how to drive and to road safety
training, from school age.
� Continue specific work on young drivers and rehabilitation methods to reduce reoffending.
5.1.3. Use of crash helmets
Research shows that the use of crash helmets by two-wheel motor vehicle users reduces the
risk of fatal or serious head injury by half. Figures suggest that compliance with legislation on
crash helmet use would save up to about 1 000 lives across the EU. The Commission will
support national initiatives to increase the rate of helmet use.
Crash helmet use by the high-risk group of cyclists is also being encouraged in many Member
States. The Commission intends to compile figures on the use of helmets by cyclists in the EU
and the effectiveness of cycle helmet use in reducing the risks of head injury, in particular
amongst 10-14 year olds, the high-risk group.
Crash helmet use among moped riders is still a serious problem, whether because of weak
regulations, poor compliance or ineffective penalties. A comparative study of driving rules
and their enforcement was launched at the end of 2002. In the light of the conclusions, the
Commission will be able to take an initiative on this specific point.
� Encourage the general use of crash helmets by all two-wheel motor vehicle users.
� Study the effectiveness of crash helmet use by cyclists in different age groups, as well as
the impact on bicycle use and the measures to be taken, where appropriate, at EU level.
5.2. Using technical progress to make vehicles safer
5.2.1. Progress made on vehicle design
Vehicle design rules enable minimum protection levels to be set to avoid accidents and
provide protection against injury. Significant improvements in the protection available to
vehicle occupants in every Member State continue thanks to technological progress.
19

The EU currently has exclusive competence for whole vehicle type-approval for cars and twowheel
motor vehicles. This procedure, which is a very important means of improving road
safety will soon be extended to commercial vehicles and their trailers, as well as coaches and
buses. The continuous improvement of vehicles is ensured through the progressive adaptation
of the technical requirements in the directives which form part of the type-approval
procedures. In particular the directives on front and side impact 22 and consumer information
from the European New Car Assessment Programme (see following paragraph) have led to
the most rapid developments in car occupant protection that Europe has experienced. In
addition, by acceding to the 1958 and 1998 Geneva Agreements 23 , the European Union could
play a leading role in this matter at the world level.
As car occupants account for 57% of fatal accident victims, it is essential that progress is
maintained. Given that most pedestrians and cyclists killed and injured have been struck by a
motor vehicle, protection is also necessary to reduce the high risks of injury to which these
vulnerable users are exposed. At the same time, the substantial risks associated with
motorcycle and moped use and the high social cost of disabling injuries warrant new efforts to
understand what action is required on the design of these categories of vehicles in order to
increase crash protection.
A great deal more can be achieved, e.g. by rapidly implementing research and development
results, which will make it possible to improve other aspects of passive vehicle safety. The
Sixth Research Framework Programme will continue to encourage the setting up of
multidisciplinary teams of researchers, including doctors and biomechanists, engineers,
statisticians and psychologists from universities and industry.
At the same time, there is a revolution taking place in automotive technology which can open
up large benefits as far as active safety and accident avoidance is concerned. Vehicles are
developing into platforms for advanced electronic systems which can control a vehicle's
safety functions. This technology offers great potential for a quantum leap in the field of road
safety, thanks to smart active and passive safety systems which can improve compliance with
driving rules, in particular regarding speeding and impaired driving ability, as well as
providing intelligent protection in the event of an accident. It is however rather unlikely that
these technologies will be able to correct all behavioural faults, which are likely, during the
reference period, to remain the main cause of accidents.
Without awaiting future technologies, it would suffice to implement at the present time,
through harmonised action, the technologies already available for vehicle safety and
protective equipment to deliver a substantial proportion of the targeted reduction, in particular
for commercial vehicles.
22
23
European Parliament and Council Directive 96/27/EC and Directive 96/79/EC of 20 May 1996 and 16
December 1996 on the protection of occupants of motor vehicles in the event of a side and front impact
and amending Directive 70/156/EEC (OJ L 169, 8.7.1996, p.1 and OJ L 18, 21.1.1997, p.7).
Agreement concerning the adoption of uniform technical prescriptions for wheeled vehicles, equipment
and parts which can be fitted to and/or be used on wheeled vehicles and the conditions for reciprocal
recognition of approvals granted on the basis of these prescriptions [formerly Agreement concerning the
adoption of uniform conditions of approval and reciprocal recognition of approval for motor vehicle
equipment and parts, done at Geneva on 20 March 1958] (United Nations Economic Commission for
Europe, 5 October 1995); Agreement concerning the establishing of global technical regulations for
wheeled vehicles, equipment and parts which can be fitted and/or be used on wheeled vehicles, done at
Geneva on 25 June 1998).
20

5.2.2. Consumer information: the European New Car Assessment Programme (EuroNCAP)
People buying a new car need objective information on safety performance. The information
available has an effect on buying decisions and encourages car manufacturers to innovate in
safety and to put safety designs on the market in advance of the entry into force of legislative
standards.
Going beyond the EU's vehicle type-approval scheme, the European New Car Assessment
Programme (EuroNCAP) tests the safety of the most popular categories of new cars in
accordance with harmonised testing protocols under conditions representative of different
types of crashes which cause serious injuries to occupants, and possibly with a pedestrian
being hit. This programme adds value to the industry's own action by publishing the test
results to inform consumers about the safety performance of new cars, and has made Europe a
leading market for safety. The European Commission provides financial support and takes
part in the technical decisions.
A study carried out with the support of the Commission 24 has concluded that each star
awarded according to the criteria of the EuroNCAP programme can be associated with a
reduction of almost 10% in fatal accident risks to occupants. It has shown that cars awarded
five stars (one model in 2001, six models in 2002) have a 36% lower intrinsic fatal accident
risk than vehicles which are simply designed to meet the legal standard.
Recently, it has been seen that "five EuroNCAP stars" is tending to become a commercial
argument which the car industry is putting to good advantage.
Future development of the EuroNCAP programme will make it possible to incorporate other
passive safety aspects, such as whiplash protection and the compatibility of vehicles in the
event of car-on-car impact.
� The Commission will continue to support EuroNCAP to enable further progress to be
made, to raise awareness among and inform consumers and to strengthen the
representation of the Member States.
5.2.3. Accident protection or passive safety
Work is currently under way on a specification for audible or visual reminder systems for seat
belt use. These devices already form part of vehicle assessment under the EuroNCAP
programme, and the EEVC 25 will draw up a standard to evaluate performance. This type of
equipment could provide a relatively cheap and efficient means of increasing seat belt use, if
fitted universally. Swedish estimates indicate that effective seat belt reminders could reduce
car occupant deaths by about 20%. For the EU as a whole this would save more than 4 000
lives each year. Community legislation on child restraint systems was recently tightened
up 26 Agreement is also expected in the United Nations Economic Committee for Europe on a
universal child restraint anchorage system. This agreement should facilitate and increase the
24
25
26
“Quality Criteria for the Safety Assessment of Cars Based on Real-World Crashes“ (SARAC).
European Enhanced Vehicle Safety Committee, which receives Community funding.
European Parliament and Council Directive 2003/20/EC of 8 April 2003, amending European
Parliament and Council Directive 91/671/EEC on the approximation of the laws of the Member States
relating to compulsory use of safety belts in vehicles of less than 3.5 tonnes (OJ L 115, 9.5.2003, p.63).
The title of Directive 91/671/CEE as amended now reads as follows “on the approximation of the laws
of the Member States relating to compulsory use of safety belts and child restraint systems in vehicles”.
21

safety of fitting children's seats in vehicles and help to resolve a problem widely reported by
parents.
Sweden has the highest rate of seat belt use in Europe (95%), but half the people killed in
accidents there were not wearing their seat belts. This shows the high potential of any
measure which will further increase seat belt use, in particular seat belt reminder systems for
all occupants.
Safer car fronts for pedestrians and cyclists are a priority for EU action. The Commission
recently adopted a legislative proposal on the subject. 27 When implemented in full, designs
which meet the four EEVC performance tests could save up to 2 000 pedestrians' and cyclists'
lives each year.
With regard to collisions between lorries and cars, Community legislation already lays
down requirements for the rear end, side guard and front of heavy goods vehicles in order to
limit underrun by cars, 28 and greater protection of occupants can be obtained by introducing
energy absorption criteria. As regards collisions between cars, there is also potential for
improving vehicle compatibility. Over time, the legislation will have to be amended to
introduce such criteria.
In addition, the passive safety of motorcycles and the interaction between road vehicles
and the infrastructure could be substantially improved.
All of these aspects are short-term priorities. The Commission will continue to use all
instruments which are likely to improve the passive safety of vehicles. It will examine, in
particular, the effects on road safety of the proliferation of 4x4s and SUV and MPV (sports
utility vehicles and multipurpose vehicles) which, as in the USA, are causing increasing
concern.
� Develop a harmonised specification for the installation of audible or visual seat belt
reminder systems and promote their universal use by voluntary agreement.
� Introduce universal anchorage systems for child restraint devices.
� Improve cars to reduce the severity of accidents involving pedestrians and cyclists.
� Study the causes of and ways of preventing whiplash injuries.
� Support the development of smart restraint systems.
27
28
Proposal for a European Parliament and Council Directive relating to the protection of pedestrians and
other vulnerable road users in the event of a collision with a motor vehicle and amending Directive
70/156/EEC (COM(2003) 67 final, 19.2.2003).
Council Directive 70/221/EEC of 20 March 1970 on the approximation of the laws of the Member
States relating to liquid fuel tanks and rear protective devices for motor vehicles and their trailers (OJ L
76, 6.4.1970, p.23), as last amended by European Parliament and Council Directive 2000/8/EC of 20
March 2000 (OJ L 106, 3.5.2000, p.23); Council Directive 89/297/EEC of 13 April 1989 on the
approximation of the laws of the Member States relating to the lateral protection (side guards) of certain
motor vehicles and their trailers (OJ L 124, 5.5.1989, p.1); European Parliament and Council Directive
2000/40/EC of 26 June 2000 on the approximation of the laws of the Member States relating to the
front underrun protection of motor vehicles and amending Council Directive 70/156/EEC (OJ L 203,
10.8.2000, p.9).
22

� Adapt to technical progress the front, side and rear-end impact directives for lorries to limit
vehicle underrun, and introduce energy absorption criteria.
� Make vehicles more compatible.
� Examine the impact on road safety of the proliferation of 4x4s, sports utility vehicles and
multipurpose vehicles
5.2.4 Accident prevention or active safety
The new on-board information and communication technologies (Intelligent Transport
Systems, or ITS) offer considerable potential for reducing the number of victims. On-board
radars, for example, are able to detect an accident situation and activate safety equipment
even before impact, thus avoiding an accident or considerable reducing the consequences. The
development of sensors, actuators and computers has already made possible the widespread
introduction of ABS devices and systems to enhance vehicle stability, such as ESP
(Electronic Stability Programme) devices which help drivers to keep control of their vehicles
in extreme conditions. New generations of active safety and driver-assistance equipment
(Advanced Driver-Assistance Systems, or ADS) should be available shortly. The systems
involved are, on the one hand, autonomous safety systems capable of incorporating not only
vehicle-related and driver-related parameters but also data related to the vehicle's environment
and, on the other hand, interactive systems allowing vehicle-to-vehicle exchange of safety
information.
By analysing information from the vehicle's environment, these systems can evaluate the risk
of an accident occurring. They can warn the driver and initiate the appropriate urgent
avoidance action. If an accident is inevitable, the system can optimise the operation of the
passive protection devices. Other systems will automatically warn the emergency services.
The EU, the Member States and the industry need to establish an integrated approach to
improve the effectiveness of these new safety technologies. The eSafety initiative launched
in 2002 by the Commission and the motor vehicle industry 29 as part of the eEurope plan
launched by the Heads of State at the Feira European Council in June 2001 has resulted in the
formulation of recommendations and a number of actions at Community level which will
shortly be presented by the Commission in a communication on information and
communication technologies for intelligent vehicles. These actions may be regarded as a
particularly important component of this action programme.
In addition to the actions to be carried out primarily by the motor vehicle industry, as set out
in this communication, the EU will adopt a plan concerning intelligent traffic-management
systems drawn up by the government authorities in the interest of road safety, so as to derive
maximum benefits for society as a whole.
Among the long-term development activities, priority should be given to the systems with the
best prospects 30 . With the increase in the volume of traffic, improving vehicle speed
management is a safety requirement which should make it possible to combat congestion. In
29
30
For further information, please consult the following website.
www.eu.int/information_society/programmes/esafety/index_en.htm
Such as speed limiting and warning devices, including Intelligent Speed Adaptation (ISA) systems;
collision alert devices and lane support systems; Adaptive Cruise Control (ACC); intersection detection
devices.
23

addition to the road safety benefits, compliance with speed limits will also have a significant
impact in terms of reducing greenhouse gas emissions. To evaluate the conditions needed for
the operation of speed adaptation systems, the experiments in several countries, eg Sweden,
the Netherlands, the UK, Belgium, France and Germany should be examined.
In compliance with the data protection legislation and the right to mobility, promising
technologies such as the following should also continue to be examined:
– systems to prevent the starting of vehicles in the event of excessive drinking ("alcolocks").
Ultimately, such systems could be included among the range of measures applicable to
drink-driving offenders;
– speed management devices for dynamic vehicle control in order to reduce stopping
distances, increase stability and prevent roll-over accidents, in particular in the case of
heavy duty vehicles;
– (non-intrusive) detection of driver fatigue or of a worsening of driver performance so as to
alert the driver;
– specific devices capable of alerting the driver of a risk of collision with a pedestrian or
another vulnerable user. Although only at the research stage, this type of device is very
promising, in particular to improve safety in urban areas, and research efforts should be
pursued and supported;
– Electronic Vehicle Identification (EVI).
The Commission will present a detailed activity framework in the abovementioned
communication on information and communication technologies for intelligent vehicles.
Since the technologies are evolving, the EU should, on a permanent basis, systematically
monitor the safety of such systems and establish quality standards. In particular, the interface
of on-board information and communication systems in vehicles should be designed in such a
way as to neither jeopardise the safe operation of the vehicles nor unnecessarily restrict the
use of these systems. As a first step, in December 1999 the Commission adopted a
Recommendation inviting the industry to accept a statement of principles on the man-machine
interface 31 . The means of ensuring compliance with these principles still need to be
established.
In addition, research has shown that active safety measures are not always used by drivers in
the way they were intended to, so behavioural research is required before the wide-scale
implementation of measures of this type can be envisaged. For example, the use of systems
such as speed stabilisation systems (Automatic Cruise Control or ACC), Stop-and-Go Control
systems, and trajectory control systems involve a learning process. Since driving is entirely
the responsibility of the driver, the use of these technologies may, in addition, require
appropriate information. Additional research is also needed in order to study driver behaviour
and the psychological limits entailed by the new technologies.
31
Commission Recommendation 2000/53/EC of 21 December 1999 on safe and efficient in-vehicle
information and communication systems: A European statement of principles on human machine
interface [notified under document number C(1999)4786] (OJ L 19, 25.1.2000, p.64).
24

The impact of the new technologies on safety may be both positive and negative. While mobile
phones are not, strictly speaking, vehicle equipment as such, their widespread emergence
constitutes a new risk to which a suitable response needs to be found, since their use by
drivers significantly increases the risk of a fatal accident. 32 On the other hand, they can
improve safety by making it possible to telephone the emergency services more quickly (see
paragraph 5.5 below).
That is why it is necessary to come up with an appropriate framework to encourage the use of
effective technologies while avoiding new risks.
Improved vehicle visibility, night vision and vision in difficult conditions are the
prevention factors which offer the most encouraging prospects. The fitting and use of daytime
running lights are now regarded as very beneficial in terms of vehicle visibility. In view of the
fact that some Member States remain sceptical about the benefits of the measure, taking into
account the energy cost, the Commission will re-examine the issue before coming forward
with any proposal.
In February 2002 the Commission submitted a legislative proposal aimed at eliminating
blind spots towards the rear of new vehicles 33 which also has great potential for reducing the
number of victims. In the light of the findings of a study, it will consider making a legislative
proposal aimed at retrofitting heavy vehicles already in circulation.
Technological developments with regard to tyres (reduced amount of water projection by
heavy duty vehicles' tyres, improved road holding in slippery conditions, alert system in the
event of under-inflation) should in the short term make for reduced fuel consumption and road
noise while maintaining a high level of safety. This could produce a 10% reduction in fuel
consumption and around one thousand fewer deaths per annum. The Commission will assess
the measures needed to derive rapid benefit from this progress.
Motorcycling is the mode of transport involving by far the greatest risks. However, there are
techniques that can reduce the risk of accidents, e.g. the widespread introduction of wheel
Anti-lock Braking Systems (ABS). The Commission will continue to examine the technical
aspects of motorcycle safety in consultation with the competent organisations with a view to
improving the regulatory requirements.
Another aspect concerns access to driving for persons with reduced mobility. Since 1989
the Commission has initiated a series of studies leading to the adoption of a list of Community
codes to be included on driving licences 34 designed to facilitate the free movement of such
persons driving vehicles which have often been adapted in very sophisticated ways. The
QUAVADIS study is at present analysing the quantitative, procedural and safety aspects of
adaptations. The results of the work in question should make it possible to adopt guidelines in
the medium term and promote the mobility of persons requiring adapted vehicles.
32
33
34
See, for example the study "Telefonieren am Steuer und Verkehrssicherheit" (Telephoning at the wheel
and traffic safety) (Bundesanstalt für Strassenwesen [BAST], Bergisch Gladbach, Germany, November
1997).
Proposal for a European Parliament and Council Directive on the approximation of the laws of the
Member States relating to the type-approval of mirrors and supplementary systems for indirect vision
and of vehicles equipped with these devices and amending Directive 71/156/EEC [COM(2001)811
final, 7.1.2002, OJ C 126 E, 28.5.2002, p.125].
Council Directive 97/26/EC of 2 June 1997 amending Directive 91/439/EEC on the driving licence
(OJ L 150, 7.6.1997, p.41). The list in question was amended by Commission Directive 2000/56/EC of
14 September 2000 (OJ L 237, 21.9.2000, p.45).
25

In addition, research has shown that active safety measures are not always used by drivers in
the way they were intended to, so behavioural research is required before the wide-scale
implementation of measures of this type can be envisaged.
� Examine the wide-scale use of daytime running lights on all vehicles.
� Improve the visibility of heavy duty vehicles.
� Eliminate blind spots towards the rear for drivers of heavy duty vehicles.
� Assess measures to reduce tyre-related accidents.
� Examine driver impairment detection devices, e.g. alcohol ignition interlocks (alcolocks)
and driver fatigue detectors.
� Examine national trials of Intelligent Speed Adaptation devices and assess their
acceptability to the public.
� Improved motorcycle safety through legislation or voluntary agreements with the industry.
� Examine the benefits of harmonising the approval of adaptations to vehicles for persons
with reduced mobility.
� Adopt a long-term plan concerning information and communication systems and road
safety and establish the necessary regulatory framework for implementing such systems,
including licensing procedures, performance requirements and the existence of adequate
radio frequencies.
� Identify priority areas for the development and implementation of performance standards
to optimise the man-machine interface and the road safety potential of telematics
applications. Ensure compliance with the declaration of principles concerning the
human-machine interface.
5.2.5. Periodic technical inspection
Mechanical defects are a minor contributory factor in road accidents thanks to the widespread
introduction of roadworthiness testing and inspection which, for all vehicles from private cars
to heavy duty vehicles, have to be carried out in accordance with Community legislation 35 .
However, the inspections carried out will need to keep pace with the growing complexity of
on-board technologies and the way they operate, to ensure that they function properly
throughout the lifetime of the vehicle.
The Commission will examine the advisability of including other categories of vehicles in
roadworthiness testing and the promotion of alternative methods guaranteeing an equivalent
result.
35
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) last adapted to technical progress by Commission Directive 2001/9/EC of 12 February 2001 (OJ L
48, 17.2.2001, p. 18); European Parliament and Council Directive 2000/30/EC of 6 June 2000 on the
technical roadside inspection of the roadworthiness of commercial vehicles circulating in the
Community (OJ L 203,10.8.2000, p.1).
26

It also examines its accession to the 1997 international agreement 36 with a view to the
harmonisation - at an international level of minimum testing standards.
� Examine, together with the Member States, the need to include new on-board electronics
systems in roadworthiness testing.
� Determine and encourage best practices so as to improve the efficiency of periodic
compulsory inspections at the lowest cost.
5.3. Encouraging the improvement of road infrastructure
5.3.1. Background
Road infrastructure improvements and the introduction of procedures can make a significant
contribution towards reducing the frequency and seriousness of road traffic accidents. By
giving roads an explicit configuration, designers can influence road user behaviour. The
"self-explaining roads" concept makes it possible to improve driver behaviour through better
information about appropriate speeds. Furthermore, the creation of a forgiving road
environment (e.g. side barriers and roadside verges) so that human error does not necessarily
end in death or serious injury should make for safer roads.
The European Parliament has, on several occasions, called for systematic safety impact
assessments to be carried out for new infrastructure financed by European funds, and for
guidelines to be drawn up at European level for the implementation of low-cost road safety
measures and the carrying-out of safety audits.
As indicated in the White Paper already mentioned, when new road projects are examined a
safety impact assessment should be carried out to make sure that the projects will not have
adverse effects on safety in the area in question. A Community methodology for carrying out
such impact assessments should be established. Safety audits should also be carried out to
check the actual design at the different stages of the road project.
Road improvements save lives, and the Community has an important role to play in
encouraging them. It has two principal means: drawing up technical guidelines at EU level for
voluntary use by safety professionals, and harmonising safety engineering procedures,
standards and equipment for the trans-European road network.
Pending the achievement of the improvements needed to the existing network, the
Commission has undertaken work aimed at harmonising the criteria for identifying black
spots, and the means of making their presence known to users who are not familiar with the
areas in question. On the basis of this work, and as announced in the White Paper, in 2003 the
Commission intends, as part of a legislative proposal concerning road infrastructure safety, to
introduce a harmonised definition of black spots, Community signs, motorist information, and
countermeasures.
European road assessment programmes aimed at providing users with better information
about the risks involved and raising awareness about the need to invest in road improvements
are also an interesting idea. Roads where there is insufficient shock protection or the speed
36
Agreement concerning the adoption of uniform conditions for periodical technical inspections of
wheeled vehicles and the reciprocal recognition of such inspections, done at Vienna on 13 November
1997 (United Nations Economic Commission for Europe)
27

limits are inappropriate receive bad marks. This mechanism, combined with a star system to
indicate the accident risks connected with a particular road, should prompt users to drive more
carefully. The ultimate objective is to reduce the proportion of high-risk European roads and
tunnels.
Motorist associations have launched a road assessment programme known as EuroRAP
(European Road Assessment Programme). The idea is to give motorists across Europe
information based on objective criteria about the level of safety on the main roads they use.
The Commission is supporting this new project.
5.3.2. Drawing-up of technical guidelines concerning infrastructure safety
In the same way as national guidelines in certain Member States have been helpful, technical
guidelines concerning infrastructure safety setting out universal principles illustrated by case
studies could assist professionals at local and regional level involved in the specification and
implementation of road safety measures. The Commission has already stressed in the White
Paper the importance of actions such as the approximation of the technical characteristics of
infrastructure and the basic harmonisation of road signs, including variable message signals.
In the context of the abovementioned proposal for a Directive, the Commission will propose
the drawing-up of guidelines for infrastructure safety and driver information. The priority
areas include: low-cost measures whether at high-risk sites, along certain stretches of road or
on an area-wide basis, safety audits, urban safety management, speed reduction and forgiving
infrastructure. These guidelines could evolve and be part of the standard European
specifications used for invitations to tender for the construction and maintenance of road
infrastructure. This will facilitate an increase in transnational competition by approving bids
in terms of quality and price. It would also have effects in terms of simplification and
administrative standardisation.
The Commission will facilitate the gathering and dissemination of information on best roadimpact-assessment
and audit practices. It will support demonstration projects applying the
Community guidelines with regard to infrastructure safety, in particular in the context of the
Sixth Research Framework Programme and, in due course, in areas such as safety audits,
urban safety management and safety impact assessment, will make funding for all
infrastructure projects financed by the EU, including the trans-European road network,
subject to the application of these guidelines.
Each year, over 330 people are killed at level crossings in the EU as a result of ignorance of,
or failure to comply with, traffic rules. Unaware of the consequences of their actions, certain
drivers behave irresponsibly. The institutional problems between road and rail operators and
the lack of standardisation of signalling make matters worse.
In consultation with the road and rail operators, the Commission intends to work out good
conduct guidelines to identify effective solutions to substantially reduce this carnage.
5.3.3. Trans-European road network
In 1996 the Council gave the EU the task of guaranteeing a high uniform level of service,
comfort and safety for users of the trans-European networks 37 . This legal obligation, together
37
European Parliament and Council Decision 1692/96/EC of 23 July 1996 on Community guidelines for
the development of the trans-European transport network (OJ L 228, 9.9.1996, p.1).
28

with the considerable growth in international transport in recent years, makes it necessary to
improve the safety of the trans-European road network.
A study will be launched to determine the casualty reduction potential of better harmonisation
of safety rules, road signs and engineering standards for roads and road equipment (taking
account of other international work, such as that carried out by the UN Economic
Commission for Europe).
Several European standards have already been adopted, notably on road safety equipment.
These should be gradually improved and based on performance criteria.
Road safety actions on this portion of the road network will assume particular importance in
the context of enlargement since the countries concerned will need to invest massively to
improve their part of the trans-European road network, much more so than in the 15 current
Member States.
The Commission will lay down guidelines with a view to establishing a link between
Community funding of this network and safety improvements.
5.3.4. Safety of tunnels
Many road infrastructures, including tunnels, were built several decades ago when traffic
density and vehicle characteristics were different from what they are today. As a result of
recent tunnel accidents, in December 2002 the Commission submitted a proposal for a
Directive aimed at ensuring a minimum level of safety in road tunnels on the trans-European
network 38 .
The proposed measures concern organisation and technical equipment. To take account of the
diversity of tunnels, both in functional terms and in terms of their safety, they should enter
into force gradually. High-risk tunnels, i.e. some of the oldest ones or tunnel designed for a
lower volume of traffic than present or forecast traffic levels should be the subject of remedial
work as a matter of priority.
The Commission will also be vigilant with regard to safety measures planned for
infrastructure projects which include sections in tunnels and which receive Community
funding, particularly under the budget for the trans-European network.
As in 2002, it intends to continue to support projects concerning user information on tunnel
safety.
5.3.5. The new "intelligent road" concept and GALILEO
The early detection of abnormal traffic conditions and the transmission of relevant data to
drivers will make a significant contribution to improving road safety.
The detection of abnormal traffic situations can be improved in the years to come by using
vehicles themselves as sensors and by centralising data in road traffic control centres thanks
to the variety of means of communication available. More extensive cooperation between the
public and private sectors in this area should make it possible to introduce more efficient,
low-cost, harmonised procedures, e.g. by giving the private sector access to traffic data and
38
COM(2002) 769 final, 30.12.2002.
29

establishing a strict legal and operating framework for the development of traffic information
services. 39
Information about any abnormal situation can be transmitted to drivers using the various
means available, e.g. variable-message signs, radio road information services, etc.
The introduction of harmonised electronic toll systems on which the Commission recently
submitted a proposal for a Directive 40 will reduce congestion and hence the risk of accidents
at toll stations.
The coming into service of the GALILEO European satellite positioning system will play an
important role as from 2008 as a result of the accuracy that will be provided by the system
and the greater reliability of the information that will be transmitted. More accurate and more
efficient systems will be made available to motorists and the authorities in the following
areas:
– navigation and guidance systems based on digital mapping enhanced by safety information
transmitted to drivers on static hazards (black spots, etc.) and dynamic hazards (black ice,
dense traffic, etc.) that they are likely to encounter
– traffic information which can be filtered so as to respond precisely to the needs and
situation of drivers
– accident alert system for the automatic transmission of essential information to the nearest
emergency service unit
– "tracking", eg monitoring vehicles used for the carriage of hazardous goods, stolen
vehicles or vehicles used for criminal activities.
These aspects will also be expanded upon in the Commission communication already
mentioned concerning the eSafety programme aimed at the deployment of new on-board
safety technologies.
� Submit a proposal for a framework Directive on road infrastructure safety with a view to
introducing a system for the harmonised management of black spots and road safety audits for
roads on the trans-European network.
� Draw up technical guidelines concerning infrastructure, notably for low-cost measures, audit
methods, urban safety management, speed-moderation techniques and forgiving roadsides.
� Draw up good practice guidelines for level-crossing safety.
� Assess the safety impact of projects receiving Community funding and concerning an entire area.
� Adapt to technical progress the Community standards applicable to road equipment and ensure a
high level of protection, notably by making roadsides less hazardous in the event of an accident.
� Carry out research and demonstration projects on "intelligent roads".
39
40
Commission Recommendation of 4 July 2001 on the development of a legal and business framework
for participation of the private sector in deploying telematics-based traffic and travel information (TTI)
services in Europe (OJ L 199, 24.7.2001, p. 20).
Proposition for a European Parliament and Council Directive on the widespread introduction and
interoperability of electronic road toll systems in the Community (COM(2003) 132 final, 23.4.2003)
30

� Achieve a high level of safety in tunnels, notably through standards and user information.
5.4. Safe commercial goods and passenger transport
Over the last decade the number of heavy duty vehicles travelling on European roads has
increased substantially. Reversing the trend in the number of accidents involving heavy duty
vehicles is a challenge both for society and more directly for the road haulage sector. Truck
driving is one of the most dangerous professions, and commercial drivers also have a right to
a safe working environment in line with the most recent standards concerning working
conditions.
In this context, the European Parliament and the Council adopted for all vehicles over 3.5
tonnes and all vehicles carrying eight or more passengers:
– in November 2002 a Directive on the widespread introduction of speed-limiting devices
from 2005 for new vehicles and 2008 for vehicles registered after 1 October 2001 41 . The
Commission will assess the impact of this Directive, notably for lighter vehicles below 7.5
tonnes and, where appropriate, will submit proposals.
– in April 2003 a Directive requiring seat belts to be worn by drivers and passengers sitting
in seats equipped with them 42 . To make this measure more effective, in 2003 the
Commission will propose the wide-scale fitting of safety belts on all seats in coaches 43 .
The Commission has in addition launched work aimed at identifying the specific problems
arising concerning the transport of children with a view, where appropriate, to introducing
protection rules for school transport vehicles.
The Commission has also submitted a proposal for a Directive on the initial and continuous
training of commercial drivers 44 ; what is at stake is crucial since it is a question of reversing
the current situation: at present no more than 10% of commercial drivers have received
training beyond what is required for obtaining their driving licences. Implementing the
Directive will help to raise the level of road safety, stationary safety and the quality of service,
help drivers taking up the occupation and remedy distortions of competition in this area.
In addition, a legislative proposal aimed at improving and tightening up the rules in force
concerning the monitoring of and compliance with driving rest periods 45 is at present being
examined in Parliament and in the Council. The purpose of this initiative is to promote the
effectiveness and uniform interpretation of the existing rules in this area. The proposal also
contains provisions aimed at determining employers' liability in respect of certain offences
committed by their drivers and harmonising the conditions in which vehicles may be
immobilised. Another legislative proposal is in preparation, namely a Directive which is part
of the package of controls (see Section 5.1.1 above) aimed at improving the application of the
41
42
43
44
45
European Parliament and Council Directive 2002/85/EC of 5 November 2002 amending Council
Directive 92/6/EEC on the installation and use of speed-limitation devices for certain categories of
motor vehicles in the Community (OJ L 327, 4.12.2002, p.8). The earlier Directive only concerned
heavy goods vehicles over 12 tonnes and coaches over 10 tonnes.
European Parliament and Council Directive 2003/20/EC (already mentioned in paragraph 5.2.3).
Not urban buses.
Proposal for a European Parliament and Council Directive on the training of professional drivers for the
carriage of goods or passengers by road [COM(2001) 56 final, 2.2.2001, OJ C 154E, 29.5.2001, p.258].
Proposal for a European Parliament and Council Regulation on the harmonisation of certain social
legislation relating to road transport [COM(2001)573 final, 12.10.2001, OJ C 51E, 26.2.2002, p. 234]
31

social provisions dealing with driving and rest periods and working hours 46 . This Directive,
which will amend the abovementioned Directive 88/599/EC, will entail, among other
measures, a considerable increase in the number of controls to be carried out to verify
compliance with driving and rest periods (at present 1% of working days are subject to
controls). Other provisions of this proposal for a Directive are aimed at encouraging
systematic exchanges of information, the coordination of control activities, especially as
regards cross-border transport, periodic consultations between the national administrations
and the training of inspectors to ensure better compliance with the various pieces of
legislation.
The introduction of the digital tachograph 47 , which can record data over a longer period than
the mechanical tachograph can at present, e.g. data concerning speed and driving time, will
represent substantial progress in terms of the performance of control means.
Table 2 below is another example of the sharing of responsibilities between the various levels
concerned.
European Union
National
level
Regional
/local
Private
sector
- Regulation 3820/85 harmonising working and rest periods
- Regulation 3821/85 requiring tachographs on heavy duty vehicles
- Directive 88/599 introducing a minimum frequency for road checks
- Initiation of cooperation between national police forces for controls on international transport
- Monitoring of the incorporation of Community legislation by the Member States into their
national law
- Approval of tachographs and vehicles fitted with them
- Organisation of controls and penalties for exceeding working hours
- Application of penalties
- Roadside and in-firm checks concerning tachographs disks
- Motorway rest areas
level - Issue of drivers' cards
- Driver information and awareness-raising by employers and appropriate transport planning
- Taking compliance with the rules into account in wages
- Insurance discounts for proper application of the legislation
- Compliance with the regulations by drivers
Table 2: Compliance with working and rest period legislation by commercial drivers
Load shedding by heavy goods vehicles because of inadequate load securing is a source of
road accidents which are often very serious. Some member States have complete legislation
on this, but the lack of harmonisation at Community level is a serious problem for
46
47
Working time is governed by Council Directive 93/104/EC of 23 November 1993 (OJ L 307,
13.12.1993) as amended by Directive 2000/34/EC of 22 June 2000 (OJ L 195, 1.8.2000, p.41), and
supplemented by the European Parliament and Council sectoral Directive 2002/15/EC of 11 March
2002 (OJ L 80, 23.3.2002, p. 35
Council Regulation (EC) No 2135/98 of 24 September 1998 amending Regulation (EEC) No 3821/85
on recording equipment in road transport and Directive 88/599/EEC concerning the application of
Regulations (EEC) No 3820/85 and (EEC) No 3821/85 (OJ L 274, 9.10.98, p. 1); Commission
Regulation (EC) No 1360/2002 of 13 June 2002 adapting to technical progress for the seventh time
Council Regulation (EEC) No 3821/85 on recording equipment in road transport (OJ L 207, 5.8.2002,
p. 1)
32

international carriers. To remedy this situation, in 2002 the Commission undertook the
drawing up of a best practice guide.
The transport of exceptional loads, 48 which can constitute a road safety hazard, is another
source of problems because of the lack of harmonisation of the rules in question, sometimes
even between the different regions in the same Member State. Here too, the Commission has
undertaken the drawing up of a best practice guide.
The legislation governing the technical conditions concerning the carriage of hazardous
goods by road is also an important part of the existing body of Community road safety
legislation. These rules are regularly reviewed in the light of international work, in particular
in the context of the European Agreement on the international carriage of goods by road
(ADR). The need to take better account of the hazards related to the growing safety concerns
(protection against the use of vehicles with the intention of causing harm) will result in a
reassessment of the provisions of this legislation.
The EU will assign special important to the application of the measures described above to
the commercial transport sector, notably the technical and training measures and the
development of new traffic safety/management technologies.
In the near future, it will also be necessary to address the possible consequences of the
growing use of small commercial vehicles and company vehicles. The lack of regulation as
regards training, driving and rest periods, and speed-limiting devices may have an impact in
terms of road safety.
� Adoption and incorporation in national legislation of a European Parliament and Council
Directive on the training of commercial drivers.
� Tighter legislation (and enforcement) of driving and rest periods for commercial road
haulage.
� Installation of digital tachographs in commercial vehicles.
� Best practice guidelines concerning company policies to reduce accident and injury risks
and encouragement for the inclusion of safety as a key provision in road transport
contracts.
� Best practice guidelines concerning the securing of loads and the carriage of exceptional
loads.
� Adapting to technical progress the Community legislation concerning the carriage of
hazardous goods.
� Making the wearing of seatbelts mandatory in coaches and heavy goods vehicles.
� Introducing protection rules for vehicles regularly used for the carriage of children.
48
Namely transport operations derogating from the obligations arising from Council Directive 96/53/EC
of 25 July 1996 laying down for certain road vehicles circulating within the Community the maximum
authorised dimensions in national and international traffic and the maximum authorised weights in
international traffic (OJ L 235, 17.9.1996 p.59)
33

� Examining the impact on road safety of the growing use of small commercial vehicles and
company vehicles.
5.5. Emergency services and care for road accident victims
Several thousands of lives could be saved in the EU by improving the response times of the
emergency services and post-impact care in the event of road traffic accidents. Conversely,
poor post-impact care could lead to avoidable injury and disability. A study conducted in the
UK has estimated that 12% of accident victims sustaining serious skeletal trauma go on to
have significant preventable disabilities.
Detailed information on injury severity is needed for a better understanding of the potential
for reducing damages through post-accident care. Data needs to be collected at national level
to measure the performance of the emergency medical services.
Increasingly, new cars will be fitted with automatic "mayday" systems and position locators.
To maximise their utility, it is important that the distress message is sent directly to the
emergency services. This type of system should be tested as part of a pilot project, initially on
heavy goods vehicles carrying out international transport operations.
Parliament and the Council recently decided to require telephone network operators to
provide the emergency services with information making it possible to locate emergency calls
using the emergency number 112 49 . In 2003 the Commission will adopt a recommendation
setting out guidelines for the implementation of this decision. Automatic alert systems are
also offered by motor vehicle manufacturers on recent vehicle models. At this stage, it is
important to ensure that the information gathered and transmitted by the various systems
reaches, without delay, the emergency services called upon to deal with accidents. These
systems will covered in the abovementioned communication on information and
communication systems for intelligent vehicles.
� Examine best practice with regard to post-accident medical care.
� Draw up specifications for satellite-positioning accident-warning systems and carry out
demonstration projects involving the whole chain of emergency service provision.
5.6. Accident data collection, analysis and dissemination
5.6.1. Background
Setting a common target for improving road safety means giving priority to the most effective
measures. While accidents are random events, they are not "Acts of God", and it is necessary
to understand their causes, circumstances and consequences, so that they can be managed,
prevented or at least mitigated.
Consequently, accident and injury databases are essential for an objective assessment of road
safety problems. Similarly, the installation in road vehicles, as in other forms of transport, of
49
New electronic communication package made up of European Parliament and Council
Directive 2002/21/EC of 7 March 2002 on a common regulatory framework for electronic
communications networks and services (Framework Directive) and European Parliament and Council
Directive 2002/22/EC of 7 March 2002 on universal service and users' rights relating to electronic
communications networks and services (Universal Service Directive) (OJ L 108, 24.4.2002, p.33).
34

on-board devices (black boxes) to record parameters which can explain the causes of
accidents will make motorists more responsible, speed up court proceedings following
accidents, lower the cost of court proceedings, and enable more effective preventive measures
to be taken.
5.6.2. The causes of accidents
There are plans to develop independent road accident investigations along the lines of the
existing European civil aviation regulations. However, it would not be possible to conduct a
detailed investigation of each road traffic accident given that there are so many of them. It is
more realistic to focus on the most serious accidents and on a representative sample of
"run-of-the-mill" accidents. Such investigations, independent from those conducted by the
judicial authorities or insurance companies should be geared to the causes of accidents rather
than the question of who is responsible and should make it possible to improve the current
legislation and practices. They should be carried out at national level on the basis of a
European methodology and their findings should be communicated for assessment by a group
of experts meeting within the Commission. These investigations, relating to a limited number
of accidents will supplement the general road accident statistics and the detailed accident case
studies carried out by multidisciplinary teams. The databases built up in this way will be made
available to researchers.
50
51
52
A special problem arises concerning post-accident investigations. At present, the
investigations carried out by the judicial authorities or insurance companies are
primarily intended to ensure reparation for damage caused by accidents and determine
who is responsible under the provisions adopted by the legislator. However, these
investigations are no substitute for the growing perceived need in Europe and the USA to
have independent technical investigations the findings of which are targeted on the causes
of accidents and how to improve the legislation.
European legislation on this type of investigations has been in force for several years
concerning civil aviation 50 . A similar obligation has been proposed for the railways 51 .
The Commission is now considering proposing that similar investigations should be
carried out concerning maritime transport 52 and in the longer term concerning road
Council Directive 94/56/EC of 21 November 1994 establishing the fundamental principles governing
the investigation of civil aviation accidents and incidents (OJ L 319, 12.12.1994, p.14) is a model for
other modes of transport. It lays down the fundamental principles governing civil aviation accident and
incident investigations. In addition, in December 2000 the Commission adopted a proposal for a
Directive on civil aviation occurrence reporting. Supplementing the current Community legislation, this
proposal concerns the analysis of incidents, occurrences which are generally precursors of accidents.
European Parliament and Council Directive 2001/12/EC of 26 February 2001 amending Council
Directive 91/440/EEC on the development of the Community's railways, which is part of the rail
package adopted in December 2000, requires the Member States to take steps to ensure that
investigations are systematically carried out in the event of accidents. In 2001 the Commission
submitted a proposal for a Directive on railway safety (COM(2002)21 final, OJ C 126E, 28.5.2002,
p.332) requiring the Member States to establish, at national level, completely independent bodies
responsible for carrying out accident investigations. A cooperation mechanism at Community level will
be established, possibly in the context of the future Railway Safety Agency.
Council Directive 1999/35/EC of 29 April 1999 on a system of mandatory surveys for the safe
operation of regular ro-ro ferries and high-speed passenger craft services (OJ L 138, 1.6.1999,
p.1)requires, from 1 December 2000, the carrying-out of an objective accident survey for all such
ferries and craft operating to or from Community ports. By 2004 the Commission intends to propose a
harmonised system for all accidents at sea.
35

accidents.
These independent investigations should be carried out at national level but in
accordance with a European methodology. The results should be communicated to a
group of independent experts meeting within the Commission which will be responsible
for improving the legislation in force and adapting the methodology to technical
developments in particular.
As indicated at the 3rd Accident Investigation Conference organised by the European
Transport Safety Council (ETSC) "a permanent independent organisation not only
guarantees independence of investigation; it also ensures that its recommendations are
followed up by action."
Since any new technology is liable to generate offsetting action by drivers, it will be
necessary to assess their impact, e.g. as regards driver fatigue alert devices, rehabilitation
measures, and progressive access-to-driving methods.
The installation of recording devices (black boxes) in certain categories of road vehicles, as
in other forms of transport, will make it possible to understand the technical causes of
accidents, make motorists more responsible, speed up court proceedings following accidents,
lower the cost of court proceedings and enable more effective prevention measures to be
taken. It will be useful to collect centrally the information recorded once there is a critical
mass of equipment in service. In the meantime, in order to avoid any possible technical
incompatibilities, it will be worthwhile drawing up technical specifications.
5.6.3. The circumstances of accidents
As already mentioned, the EU has set up the CARE data system for which disaggregated data
is supplied by the Member States and managed by the Commission's departments 53 . Since
July 2002 various tables and graphs are accessible to the public on the Europa website 54 and it
is planned to increase this service regularly. In addition, a limited number of users (two per
Member State) have direct access to all the CARE data. A group of bodies specialising in
road safety will complete a study on the practical operation of CARE before the end of
2003 55 . Data correlation studies should also be carried out to regularly estimate victim
reporting errors. To this end, it will be necessary to compare hospital data with national
statistics.
To ensure comparability between Member States, it will be necessary for various
socio-economic variables, i.e. hazard exposure variables, such as vehicle fleet, length of
networks and traffic volumes to be applied to the CARE data. The variables in question will
need to be known at a level of detail compatible with the CARE typology and measured in a
comparable manner.
In the medium term, CARE offers considerable potential as regards information and aid to
decision-making and monitoring for the public at large, researchers and politicians.
53
54
55
There is also the BICAR data base managed by the OCDE, but only aggregated data is available.
http://europa.eu.int/comm/transport/home/care/index_en.htm
ASTERYX project.
36

5.6.4. The consequences of accidents
Blood samples, radiological studies and other clinical analyses are essential for an
understanding of the consequences of accidents resulting in injuries, and the way in which
they are carried out should be codified or harmonised throughout the EU. Successful
experiments, often carried out at local level by multidisciplinary teams of road trauma
clinicians should be put to good use at EU level by encouraging exchanges of information
between specialists and drawing up best practice guidelines.
In the context of the 5th Research Framework Programme a major project to analyse road
accident trauma was launched in 2002 56 . It takes over the recommendations formulated in an
earlier project 57 on the codification of trauma. This action should be pursued and developed,
and accidentology is one of the priority action themes of the 6th Framework Programme.
5.6.5. European Road Safety Observatory
The Commission intends to set up a European Road Safety Observatory within the
Commission as a pilot project funded from the EU budget. This Observatory will coordinate
all Community activities in the fields of road accident and injury data collection and analysis.
Accommodating the CARE information system, it will be the focus in the EU for the
exchange of information on best practice and, ultimately, organise and manage Community
best practice guidelines. It could also take on the task of improving the dissemination of the
findings of road-safety research projects funded by the EU and those carried out under other
programmes, and ensure the dissemination of information.
� Develop the CARE database and widen access to it, in the interests of achieving greater
transparency and encouraging its use;
� Expand CARE to include hazard exposure variables and the causes of accidents.
� Assess and improve systems for linking hospital data and national road accident statistics.
� Develop specifications for on-board accident recording devices, and examine the consequences of
various alternatives for certain categories of vehicles.
� Set up a European road safety observatory within the Commission.
� Establish a European methodology for independent road accident investigations and set up a group
of independent experts meeting within the Commission.
56
57
PENDANT project.
STAIRS (4th Framework Programme).
37

ANNEX 1
Road traffic accidents - Trend in the number of deaths per million inhabitants,
1991-2001
Situation in each Member State (+ EUR-15 average)
B
D
E
350
300
250
200
150
100
50
350
300
250
200
150
100
50
350
300
250
200
150
100
50
1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001
1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001
1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001
38
DK
EL
F
350
300
250
200
150
100
50
350
300
250
200
150
100
50
350
300
250
200
150
100
50
1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001
1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001
1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001

IRL
350
300
250
200
150
100
L
50
350
300
250
200
150
100
50
A
350
300
250
200
150
100
50
1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001
1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001
1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001
39
I
350
300
250
200
150
100
50
NL
350
300
250
200
150
100
50
P
350
300
250
200
150
100
50
1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001
1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001
1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001

FIN
300
250
200
150
100
50
UK
300
250
200
150
100
50
1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001
1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001
40
S
300
250
200
150
100
50
1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001

1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 Total
B 1.873 1.671 1.660 1.692 1.449 1.356 1.364 1.500 1.397 1.470 1.486 16.918
DK 606 577 559 546 582 514 489 499 514 498 431 5.815
D 11.300 10.631 9.949 9.814 9.454 8.758 8.549 7.792 7.772 7.503 6.977 98.499
EL 2.112 2.158 2.159 2.253 2.411 2.157 2.105 2.182 2.116 2.037 1.895 23.585
E 8.836 7.818 6.376 5.614 5.749 5.482 5.604 5.957 5.738 5.777 5.516 68.467
F 10.483 9.900 9.867 9.019 8.891 8.541 8.444 8.918 8.487 8.079 8.160 98.789
IRL 445 415 431 404 437 453 473 458 414 418 412 4.760
I 8.109 8.053 7.188 7.091 7.020 6.676 6.713 6.314 6.633 6.410 6.410 76.617
L 83 69 78 65 70 71 60 57 58 70 69 750
NL 1.281 1.253 1.235 1.298 1.334 1.180 1.163 1.066 1.090 1.082 1.085 13.067
A 1.551 1.403 1.283 1.338 1.210 1.027 1.105 963 1.079 976 958 12.893
P 3.218 3.084 2.700 2.504 2.711 2.730 2.521 2.126 2.028 1.874 1.671 27.167
FIN 632 601 484 480 441 404 438 400 431 396 433 5.140
S 745 759 632 589 572 537 541 531 580 591 583 6.660
UK 4.753 4.379 3.957 3.807 3.765 3.740 3.743 3.581 3.564 3.580 3.598 42.467
EU-15 56.027 52.771 48.558 46.514 46.096 43.626 43.312 42.344 41.901 40.761 39.684 501.594
Road traffic accidents - Trend 1991-2001 - Number of deaths
1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001
B 188 167 165 168 143 134 134 147 137 144 145
DK 118 112 108 105 112 98 93 94 97 93 81
D 142 132 123 121 116 107 104 95 95 91 85
EL 207 210 209 216 231 206 201 208 201 193 180
E 227 201 163 143 147 140 143 151 145 145 137
F 184 173 172 157 154 147 145 153 145 138 138
IRL 126 117 121 113 121 125 130 124 111 111 108
I 143 142 126 124 123 116 117 110 115 111 111
L 216 177 197 162 172 172 143 135 135 161 156
NL 85 83 81 85 86 76 75 68 69 68 68
A 200 178 161 167 151 128 137 119 133 120 118
P 326 310 271 251 271 272 250 210 200 184 163
FIN 126 120 96 95 86 79 85 78 84 77 84
S 87 88 73 67 65 61 61 60 66 67 66
UK 82 76 68 65 64 64 64 61 60 60 60
EU-15 153 144 132 126 124 117 116 113 112 108 105
Road traffic accidents - Trend 1991-2001 - Number of deaths per million inhabitants
Sources: CARE, and national data. Estimates in italics
41

ANNEX 2
European Road Safety Charter
I, the undersigned [name, address], represented by [name and position of person signing]
Having authority, decision-making, economic or social powers or a mandate to represent,
And, in this capacity having a share of the responsibility for road safety in the European
Union,
(PREAMBLE)
Whereas the number of road accident victims in Europe at present is unacceptable, and the
most effective possible measures need to be taken to reduce this number in the shortest
possible time,
Whereas coordinated action between the many parties having responsibility, in one capacity
or another, is more likely to achieve the intended results,
Believing that there are effective measures available to encourage road users to apply safety
rules and even to take further measures, for example in order to reduce the exposure of users
to the risks of accidents; and believing that the scope of such measures will be all the greater
if a critical number of stakeholders commit themselves to them,
Subscribing to the objective of reducing the number of deaths on the roads by at least 50% by
2010,
Confident in the sense of responsibility of the individuals and organisations concerned,
Aware that actions to promote road safety entail extremely low costs compared with the
human, social and economic cost of unsafe roads,
(OBJECTIVE)
UNDERTAKE TO IMPLEMENT, PROACTIVELY, THE MEASURES WITHIN THE SPHERE OF MY
RESPONSIBILITY AND ACTIVITIES SO AS TO SPEED UP PROGRESS ON ROAD SAFETY.
UNDERTAKE IN PARTICULAR, WITHIN THE BOUNDS OF MY RESPONSIBILITY AND SPECIFICITIES, AND
WHERE NECESSARY, IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE ANNEX TO THIS CHARTER, TO IMPLEMENT THE
FOLLOWING PRINCIPLES AND MEASURES:
1. To take the measures within my sphere of responsibility to contribute to the
abovementioned objective of reducing the number of road deaths.
2. To include road safety actions and safety performance measurement among my
major objectives and principal decision-making criteria, in particular in the context
of research activities, organisation and investment and in the more general
framework of the organisation of professional activities, so as to draw up a veritable
road safety plan.
3. To share with the competent bodies responsible for road safety technical and
statistical information making for a better understanding of the causes of accidents,
42

the injuries caused by accidents and the effectiveness of preventive and palliative
measures.
4. To contribute to preventing road traffic accidents by pursuing high-quality actions in
one or more of the following areas:
� initial and continuous driving training and information,
� motor-vehicle equipment and ergonomics,
� infrastructure designed to minimise the risks of accidents and their gravity and to
encourage safe driving.
5. To develop and implement technologies for reducing the consequences of road traffic
accidents.
6. To contribute towards the development of means of uniform, continuous and
appropriate monitoring of compliance with traffic rules by persons acting in my
name or under my authority and penalising any offenders in a uniform, rapid and
proportionate way.
7. To create a framework encouraging the introduction of continuous education actions
and the rehabilitation of high-risk drivers.
8. To endeavour to contribute, wherever possible, to a better understanding of the
causes, circumstances and consequences of accidents in order to draw lessons from
them in order to avoid their repetition.
9. To contribute towards ensuring that effective and high-quality, medical,
psychological and legal assistance is available for road accident victims.
10. To accept post-evaluations by peers, in accordance with appropriate confidentiality
rules, of the measures taken to improve road safety and, where necessary, to draw
lessons from them to review the measures.
AND LASTLY
11. To deliberately take the initiative of implementing measures going beyond the
regulatory requirements in force, namely ……….. [to be completed by the
signatory].
Done at …,
(signature)
43

COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES
Brussels, 15.9.2003
COM(2003) 542 final
COMMUNICATION FROM THE COMMISSION
TO THE COUNCIL AND THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT
Information and Communications Technologies for Safe and Intelligent Vehicles
(SEC(2003) 963)

COMMUNICATION FROM THE COMMISSION
TO THE COUNCIL AND THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT
Information and Communications Technologies for Safe and Intelligent Vehicles
PREFACE
Modern society depends on mobility, which provides personal freedom and access to services
for business and leisure. From society’s point of view, an efficient transport system is the
engine of our economy, and the transport sector is of huge economic importance employing
more than 10 million people and with expenditure of more than 10% of the Gross Domestic
Product (GDP) in Europe.
For a long time, the demand for transport services has grown steadily for both passengers
and goods. The continuing growth of the economic activity and the Union’s enlargement will
increase needs for mobility and transport services. Most of this growth is expected to be taken
up by the road sector at a time when tight public budgets restrict investments in the
infrastructure. The rising volumes of traffic further deteriorate the situation regarding the
problems caused by the road transport, which include congestion of the main roads
network and in urban areas, harmful effects on the environment and public health, and above
all, accidents which cause fatalities, injuries and material damage.
In the forefront in the drive for safer and more efficient transport is the automotive industry,
together with its suppliers and the emerging telematics sector, which build on the strengths of
two other industrial sectors, namely the Mobile Telecommunications and Information
Technology sectors. As a result of the efforts of the industry, vehicles today are inherently
safer, cleaner and more recyclable than before. But the societal costs of road transport are
still by far too high. The 1.300.000 accidents per year in Europe cause 40.000 fatalities and
1.700.000 injuries, at an estimated cost of 160 Billion €, or 2 % of the GDP in Europe. Road
transport is a necessity for our mobility, but new measures are required to tackle this
increasing problem. The automotive industry is facing an increasing challenge to tackle this
issue and to contribute to the main transport policy goal of the EC, which is to reduce by half
the number of road fatalities by 2010.
Road safety cannot, however, be sufficiently improved by concentrating on the industry and
the vehicles only. The public sector has to work together with the private sector both by
investing in the required infrastructure and in taking measures, which enable the market
introduction of new solutions. A lot can be achieved by simple measures like educating the
drivers to be more responsible, enforcing the existing road safety rules e.g. related to safety
belt use, drinking and driving and speed limits, and by improving the physical road
infrastructure. The safety and efficiency of roads can be also substantially improved by the
deployment of Intelligent Transport Systems (ITS) for Intelligent Infrastructure, such as
adaptive traffic control and management systems in cities, and traffic control and incident
detection systems on the motorways, the deployment of which is financially supported by the
Trans-European Networks for Transport.
Information and Communications Technologies (ICT) are already widely in use in all
areas of mobility, most notably in vehicles, which are becoming more and more intelligent.
With the development of the more powerful processors, communication technologies, sensors
2

and actuators, more and more of the vehicle control, monitoring and comfort functions are
based on ICT. Information and Communications Technologies (ICT) are also seen as the
most important set of tools enabling the industrial players to meet the above-mentioned
challenge on road safety and contributing to Europe’s expectations for safer and more
efficient mobility.
Recognising this potential, the European Commission in 2002, together with the automotive
industry and other stakeholders established an eSafety Working Group consisting of some
40 experts, and mandated it to propose a strategy for accelerating the research, development,
deployment and use of ICT-based intelligent safety systems for improving road safety in
Europe. In November 2002, the Working Group published its Final Report, which a High-
Level meeting of all stakeholders later endorsed as the basis for further actions in advancing
the use of ICT for improving road safety in Europe.
The eSafety Working Group Final Report gives 28 detailed recommendations for action,
directed to the European Commission, the Member States, road and safety authorities,
automotive industry, service providers, user clubs, insurance industry and other
stakeholders. These recommendations fall into three main categories: actions for the
development of the building blocks for integrated safety, actions for adapting regulation
and standardisation, and actions for removing the societal and business obstacles.
The report concludes that the greatest potential in the application of ICT in solving road
transport safety problems is offered by the Intelligent Vehicle Safety Systems, which use
advanced ICT for providing new, intelligent solutions which address together the involvement
of and interaction between the driver, the vehicle and the road environment. In this integrated
and global approach to safety, the autonomous on-board safety systems are complemented
with co-operative technologies, which use vehicle-to vehicle and vehicle-to infrastructure
communication to get information of the road environment for assessing the potential hazards
and optimising the functioning of the on-board safety systems.
This Communication brings forward the actions the Commission intends to take in order
to accelerate the development, large-scale deployment and use of Intelligent Vehicle
Safety Systems in Europe, with the emphasis on the Intelligent Vehicle part of these
systems. These actions are intended to facilitate the industry to develop these systems, to
enable their rapid market introduction by removing the regulatory and standardisation
obstacles, and to contribute to a joint public-private business case which is seen as a
prerequisite for their large-scale take-up.
These actions, when complemented in a co-ordinated way with shared actions by the Member
States on national, regional and local level, and by the industry itself, are expected to make a
major contribution to reducing the fatalities on European roads, and provide for the basic
need for Europe’s citizens: safe mobility.
3

TABLE OF CONTENTS
PREFACE..............................................................................................................................2
TABLE OF CONTENTS .......................................................................................................4
1. INTRODUCTION..........................................................................................................5
1.1. THE TRANSPORT SECTOR: A KEY ECONOMIC SECTOR FULFILLING A BASIC NEED ............5
1.2. GROWTH IN DEMAND OF TRANSPORT SERVICES CAUSING INCREASING PROBLEMS ..........5
1.3. URGENT ACTIONS REQUIRED IN MEETING THE SOCIETAL CHALLENGES...........................6
1.4. TOWARDS INTELLIGENT VEHICLES AND SAFER, MORE EFFICIENT MOBILITY...................6
1.5. TOWARDS MORE INTELLIGENT INFRASTRUCTURE..........................................................8
2. REAPING THE BENEFITS OF INFORMATION AND COMMUNICATIONS
TECHNOLOGIES FOR ROAD SAFETY................................................................9
2.1. FROM PASSIVE SAFETY TO ACTIVE SAFETY AND ACCIDENT PREVENTION ........................9
2.2. TOWARDS A NEW GENERATION OF INTELLIGENT SAFETY SYSTEMS THROUGH RESEARCH 9
2.3. INTELLIGENT VEHICLE SAFETY SYSTEMS................................................................. 11
2.4. A PREREQUISITE: A POSITIVE BUSINESS CASE..............................................................12
2.5. CONTRIBUTING TO PEDESTRIAN SAFETY .....................................................................13
3. RATIONALE FOR COMMUNITY ACTIONS............................................................14
3.1. INTRODUCTION..........................................................................................................14
3.2. EUROPEAN COMMISSION TAKING THE RESPONSIBILITY FOR EUROPEAN LEVEL PUBLIC
SECTOR ACTIONS .....................................................................................................14
3.3. ACTING TOGETHER AT EU, NATIONAL AND REGIONAL LEVEL......................................15
4. EUROPEAN COMMISSION ACTIONS .....................................................................16
4.1. PROMOTING INTELLIGENT VEHICLE SAFETY SYSTEMS................................................16
4.2. ADAPTING THE REGULATORY AND STANDARDISATION PROVISIONS .............................20
4.3. REMOVING THE SOCIETAL AND BUSINESS OBSTACLES .................................................22
4.4. OTHER ACTIONS ........................................................................................................23
5. REPORTING ...............................................................................................................24
ANNEX 1: GLOSSARY OF TERMS ..................................................................................25
ANNEX 2: SUMMARY OF CONSULTATIONS................................................................27
4

1. INTRODUCTION
1.1. The transport sector: A key economic sector fulfilling a basic need
Mobility and transport is a concern for citizens throughout Europe: there are 375 million road
users in the EU. Modern society depends on mobility, which provides personal freedom and
access to services for business and leisure. From society’s point of view, an efficient transport
system is the engine of our economy, and the transport sector is of huge economic importance
employing more than 10 million people and with expenditure of more than 10% of the Gross
Domestic Product (GDP) in Europe.
A key industry in the transport sectors is the automotive sector, which manufactures about 17
million vehicles per year and employs with its suppliers close to 2 million people in Europe,
with a turnover of 452 billion € world-wide 1 . The automotive telematics market, comprising
of sales of telematics platforms and services is experiencing rapid growth in market
penetration, and according to some market studies will reach an annual revenue as high as 8,5
billion € in Europe in 2007, up from 1 billion € in 2000. As the car parc of vehicles with
telematics grows, the market will shift towards services 2 , further integrating the automotive
market with two other key industrial sectors in Europe: Mobile Communications and
Information Technology. As a whole, Information and Communications Technologies
(ICT) play a key role in the convergence of these sectors towards the Intelligent Vehicles of
the future. The coming generation of mobile communication technology will further reinforce
this trend.
1.2. Growth in demand of transport services causing increasing problems
For a long time, the demand for transport services has grown steadily for both passengers and
goods. Most of this growth has taken place in road transport, which has been able to increase
capacity and offer competitive services. It is estimated that some 80% of travel calculated in
passenger-km is currently by car, and road makes up 44% of the goods transport market.
Between 1970 and 2001, the number of vehicles in the Community grew from 62.5 million to
over 205 million 3 , and the vehicle parc is now increasing by more that 3 million every year.
The continuing growth of the economic activity in the Union, and its enlargement will
increase needs for mobility and transport services, with estimated increase in demand of 38%
for goods services and 24% for passengers by 2010 in the EU of 15. Most of this growth is
expected to be taken up by the road sector, which further deteriorates the situation regarding
the problems caused by the road transport, which include congestion at more points of the
main roads network and in urban areas, harmful effects on the environment and public health,
and above all accidents, causing fatalities, injuries and material damage.
At the same time, tight public budgets restrict investments in the infrastructure. These
problems are not only socio-economic ones, but concern each and every citizen in their daily
lives. The 1.300.000 accidents per year in Europe cause 40.000 fatalities and 1.700.000
injuries, at an estimated cost of 160 Billion €, or 2 % of the GDP. On a personal level, these
accident figures translate to one third of us being injured in an accident at some point of their
lives. The psychological damage to the victims and their families cannot even be estimated.
1
2
3
Sources: ACEA and Eurostat, 2001
Source: European Automotive Telematics Market, Frost&Sullivan 2001
Source: ACEA, 2001. The total number of motor vehicles in use was 205,8 million, out of which 180,3
million were passenger cars.
5

1.3. Urgent actions required in meeting the societal challenges
Road transport is a necessity for our mobility, but new measures are required to tackle the
increasing problems associated with it. In the forefront in the drive for safer and more
efficient transport is the automotive industry, together with its suppliers and the emerging
telematics sector. Both of these largely depending on the strengths of two other industrial
sectors, namely the Mobile Communications and the Information Technology sectors.
Thanks largely to the efforts of the industry, vehicles today are inherently safer, cleaner and
more recyclable than before. Thanks to improvements in the crash-worthiness of the vehicles,
safety belts, ABS and other inventions, the vehicles are now four times safer than in 1970;
this has largely contributed to the reducing by 50% of the number of deaths in EU 15 from
1970, while the traffic volumes have tripled during the same period.
But the societal costs of road transport are still far too high, and new goals have been set. The
automotive industry, with its suppliers and the related industrial sectors, are facing an
increased challenge to comply with both tighter environmental controls expected by both the
society and citizens, aiming at more sustainable transport 4 , and demands to contribute to the
main transport policy goal of the EC, which is to reduce by half the number of road fatalities
by 2010 5 . Regarding road safety, the effect of the current measures appears to be reaching its
limits, and new measures are urgently required.
In order to tackle the whole issue of road safety, including enforcement of current safety
measures to be undertaken at Member State and regional level, the Commission has
introduced an European Road Safety Action Programme 6 .
1.4. Towards Intelligent Vehicles and safer, more efficient mobility
ICT holding the promise of safer and more efficient mobility
Looking forward, Information and Communications Technologies (ICT) should guarantee
mobility and secure economic growth. The primary effects of ICT in transport and mobility
are in enabling the development of more Intelligent Vehicles, more sophisticated telematics
services, and for advanced Intelligent Transport Systems (ITS) to be applied to traffic control
and management systems providing the intelligent road infrastructure. Telematics and
innovative logistics based on ICT can help to make traffic flows more efficient and to avoid
congestion, even on the existing road infrastructure.
Towards more intelligent vehicles
Increasingly, the competitiveness of the automotive sector depends on its ability to use and
adopt the latest Information and Communications Technologies. An increasing number of
vehicle functions are controlled by processors and software, and more and more of the added
value of the vehicle comes from sophisticated electronic systems which can replace entire
mechanical and hydraulic subsystems. Today, the electronics sensors, actuators and
subsystems for vehicle control, monitoring, safety and comfort comprise some 30% of the
vehicles’ added value; this is expected to rise to some 40% in 2005.
4
5
6
Gothenburg European Council, 2001
White Paper on European Transport Policy for 2010, adopted by the Commission in September 2001
European Road Safety Action Programme : Halving the number of road accident victims in the
European Union by 2010 : A shared responsibility, COM 2003(311) final 2.6.2003
6

During the last decade, we have made in Europe a major investment in the use of ICT in invehicle
safety technologies like Advanced Driver Assistance Systems (ADAS). While these
technologies are introduced on the markets, there is a need to continue investment in future,
advanced technologies. While these technologies have a wide scope of applications in
Intelligent Vehicles, including on-board diagnostic systems 7 , this Communication deals only
with the application of these technologies for road safety. The EU’s 6 th Framework
Programme for Research and Technological Development offers further possibilities for
applying for funding in this area 8 .
Towards more sophisticated telematics services
The automotive telematics industry is driven by Information and Communications
Technologies. The key ICT technologies include mobile telecommunications,
location/positioning technologies, intelligent sensors, actuators and interfaces, automotivegrade
high-performance processors and high-performance in-vehicle communications
networks. A key role in this rapidly growing sector is also played by services/contents
industry, which drive towards higher quality personalised services and sustainable business
models. The four principal markets for telematics services today are safety and security
(including e-Call, vehicle tracking), vehicle oriented telematics (including remote diagnostics
and proactive maintenance), navigation and routing (including dynamic navigation, Point of
Interest, traffic and travel information), fleet management and infotainment (entertainment,
internet access, information services, email).
Mobile Communications: a future pillar for telematics
With general packet radio service (GPRS) and universal mobile telecommunications system
(UMTS) advancing into the automotive markets, the outlook for mobile, location related
services is brightening up significantly. Thanks to the option of being permanently on-line
and by offering much higher bandwidths, the scope of affordable services increases rapidly.
In the future, the existing telematics services based on SMS or WAP messaging over GSM
will be replaced by location-enhanced services using GPRS/UMTS and DAB/DVB, while
RDS-TMC services using FM radio will be enhanced and are expected to co-exist on the
markets. eEurope 2005 9 , with its focus on providing mobile and broadband connectivity and
mobile services will further facilitate this development.
Logistics depending on ICT
The combination of logistics and telematics based on Information and Communications
Technologies is gaining importance in the whole transport sector, and especially in road
haulage. ICT is increasingly used in route planning, tracking and tracing and usage-related
invoicing. Road hauliers depend today on ICT for fleet management, with promises of greater
7
8
9
Directive 2001/1/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 22 January 2001 amending
Council Directive 70/220/EEC concerning measures to be taken against air pollution by emissions from
motor vehicles; published in OJ L 035 of 6.2.2001
Decision No 1513/2002/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 27 June concerning the
sixth framework programme of the European Community for research, technological development and
demonstration activities, contributing to the creation of the European Research Area and to innovation
(2002-2006); published in OJ L 232 of 29.8.2002; and 2002/834/EC: Council Decision of 30 September
2002 adopting a specific programme for research, technological development and demonstration:
"Integrating and strengthening the European Research Area" (2002-2006); published in OJ L 294 of
29.10.2002.
eEurope 2005:An information society for all, COM(2002) 263 final, 28.5.2002
7

efficiency and reduction of equipment costs. The role of ICT in logistics will increase with e-
Commerce and the trend towards just-on-time deliveries.
1.5. Towards more intelligent infrastructure
Intelligent infrastructure and co-operative systems
Many of our large and medium-sized cities are equipped with advanced computer-controlled,
adaptive traffic control and information systems. More and more of the European motorway
network is being equipped with traffic control, incident detection and traveller information
systems, which increase safety and user comfort, e.g. by informing about traffic conditions
and alternative routes in case of an accident.
The basis for an effective traffic management is the availability of real-time traffic
information. Traffic data has been conventionally collected by sensors embedded in the
pavement, installed at critical sections of the road network. Video-based sensors are
increasingly being installed and their data analysed via image processing technologies. Next
generation systems which use Floating Vehicle Data (FVD), for example based on
anonymous polling of vehicle position and speed information, hold the promise of providing
more complete traffic information for a fraction of the cost. Further advances in mobile
communications technology, traffic control, information and location technologies will enable
avoiding bottlenecks and offer new innovative ways for traffic management.
Co-operation between the intelligent infrastructure and the intelligent vehicle is valuable for
both. Information on the network condition is necessary for the best performance of the
systems included in the vehicle, and feedback information is of primary importance to
improve the knowledge of the situation for operators. Intelligent Transport Systems (ITS)
projects on the trans-European Transport Network are leading the way in introducing these
services.
Galileo: Core positioning technology for telematics services
Location information, together with mobile communications, enables a large number of
telematics services like location-enhanced emergency call (e-Call), in-vehicle navigation,
Points of Interest (POI) services, vehicle tracking, stolen vehicle location etc. The current invehicle
systems are based on satellite navigation (GPS), due to the need to operate also in
rural areas where the alternative location technology (based on mobile communication
network) does not offer sufficient performance.
The European satellite navigation infrastructure Galileo 10 will provide a set of navigation and
positioning services that allow a wide range of innovative applications to be developed.
Galileo together with the advent of new regulations in the mobile phone domain (E-112
legislation), in the road sector and others, will create new business opportunities and open
doors for new applications. The enhanced accuracy and the guaranteed service provided by
Galileo will improve the performance of the ITS services. Galileo will start operations in
2008, and in the meantime the European Geostationary Navigation Overlay Systems
(EGNOS 11 ) will provide similar enhanced services from 2004 onwards.
10
11
Council Conclusions on GALILEO, 25/25 March 2002,
europa.eu.int/comm/dgs/energy_transport/galileo/index_en.htm
Communication from the Commission to the European Parliament and the Council “Integration of the
EGNOS programme in the GALILEO Programme”, COM(2003) 123 final, 19.3. 2003
8

2. REAPING THE BENEFITS OF INFORMATION AND COMMUNICATIONS TECHNOLOGIES
FOR ROAD SAFETY
2.1. From passive safety to active safety and accident prevention
The 1.300.000 road accidents per year in Europe cause 40.000 fatalities and 1.700.000
injuries. During the last decade, the European Union, Member States and the automotive
industry have been actively involved in improving road safety through both accident
prevention and injury reduction. Most of the accident prevention measures have focused on
the driver, while the measures to reduce the consequences of an accident have primarily
focused on the vehicle, through improved passive safety such as crashworthiness, seatbelts
airbags and conventional active safety systems such as braking and lighting.
Passive Safety measures have been proven to be a very effective method for the
reduction of the car accident trauma. This can be illustrated with German accident data,
for instance. In the period from 1970-1987 the number of accidents on German roads
increased by about 40 %, as the traffic measured as kilometres travelled increased by
72%. In this same period however the number or traffic injuries decreased by 20% and
the number of fatalities even by about 50%. It was concluded that this decrease to a large
extent was due to injury prevention measures like significant improvements of the
vehicle crashworthiness and the introduction of the seat belt 12 .
These combined actions have contributed to the continuous reduction of the number of
fatalities on European roads. The number of deaths in EU 15 has halved from 1970, while the
traffic volumes have tripled during the same period 13 . Nevertheless, the number of road
accidents and the number of road victims are still unacceptably high in the European Union.
Furthermore, the contribution of many of these “conventional” safety measures is reaching its
limits, and further improvements in safety by these measures are becoming more and more
difficult to achieve at a reasonable cost. This is why the in-vehicle passive safety has to be
complemented by introducing on the markets more advanced in-vehicle and co-operative
active safety systems.
2.2. Towards a new generation of intelligent safety systems through research
During the last decade in Europe both the industry and the public sector have invested heavily
in Research and Development (RTD) in the use of Information and Communications
Technologies (ICT) in in-vehicle safety technologies and subsystems. While the bulk of the
work has been done by the industry, the EU’s Research Programmes have contributed in
realising leading edge technologies, systems and applications.
12
13
Verletzungsfolgekosten nach Strassenverkehrsunfallen". Schriftenreihe des Hauptverbandes der
gewerblichen Berufsgenossenschaften e.V. A. Sutter Druckerei GmbH, Essen
http://europa.eu.int/comm/transport/home/care/index_en.htm
9

The EU has played a role in this research since the DRIVE Programme in 1988. Under
the EU’s Fourth Framework Programme for Research, Technological Development and
Demonstration (1994 -1998), the Telematics Applications Programme, helped in
realising leading-edge systems and applications. The Information Society Technologies
(IST) programme 14 continues research in technologies and applications systems aiming at
safer, cleaner and more efficient transport, with specific focus on intelligent safety and
Advanced Driver Assistance Systems and supporting technologies. The Intelligent
Vehicle cluster of the IST Programme has over 40 projects, with total budget of over 150
million € and Community contribution of over 80 million €. Research into safer vehicles
and infrastructures as well as accident databases and human behaviour in road transport
is also undertaken in the Competitive and Sustainable Growth programme (5 th
Framework Programme) 15 .
The development of appropriate sensors, actuators and processors, has already permitted wide
spread implementation of systems, which help the driver to maintain control of the vehicle
even when he has exceeded its ‘normal’ limits of handling. Examples of such systems are
Anti-lock Braking Systems (ABS) and Electronic Stability Programme (ESP). These systems
are already making a major contribution to road safety. Together with improvements in
passive safety, the vehicles are now four times safer than in 1970.
Many accidents are avoidable if the driver was to take evasive action. This is possible
provided that the driver has retained directional control of the vehicle. However, if the
wheels lock-up under braking the driver no longer has that directional control. Anti-lock
Braking Systems (ABS) detect when any of the wheels of a vehicle are about to lock-up,
and release the brakes slightly on that wheel, ensuring that it maintains its grip on the
road. Therefore, in emergency braking situations or in slippery conditions, it is possible
for the driver of a vehicle equipped with ABS to avoid an accident by steering round it
and to retain control of the vehicle.
It is far more difficult to offer protection to the occupants from lateral impacts than
frontal impacts, especially if the struck object is narrow like a pole or tree, which is a
typical scenario when a vehicle slides or spins off the road. Therefore, vehicle and
braking system manufacturers have developed systems commonly known as Electronic
Stability Programmes (ESP) which detect the onset of a slide and automatically apply
the brakes to individual wheels to correct the slide and prevent spinning. ESP will be
beneficial even under the most pessimistic assumption that it does not avoid any
accidents but simply transforms them from lateral to frontal. ESP is now optional or even
standard on many current passenger cars. Statistics from one car manufacturer shows that
in 2001 there was a 4% reduction of accidents, compared to the year before, that could be
directly attributed to ESP. The reduction of roll-over accidents thanks to ESP have also
been estimated to be 12%.
The further development of intelligent active safety systems will require substantial RTD
efforts. The current Sixth Framework Programme for Research and Technological
Development (2002-2006) 8 will offer new funding opportunities for RTD in intelligent
integrated safety systems including accidentology and Advanced Driver Assistance Systems
and technologies. The new instrument, Integrated Project, which is designed to generate the
14
15
The Information Society Technologies Programme is part of the European Union’s Fifth Framework
Programme for research and technological development (RTD), covering the period 1998-2002
See www.europa.eu.int/comm/research/growth/gcc/menu-researchthemes.html
10

knowledge required to address major societal challenges, will be especially suitable for
research in this area. Integrated Projects are intended to build a critical mass of activities and
resources needed for achieving ambitious, clearly defined scientific and technological
objectives. These projects are of substantial size, with the duration of typically three to five
years.
2.3. Intelligent Vehicle Safety Systems
We know that almost 95% of the accidents are at least partly due to the human factor. In
almost three-quarters of the cases the human behaviour is solely to blame. This apparent
mismatch between driver skills and situation complexity can be addressed by improvements
in three factors: the driver (education and training); the environment (intelligent
infrastructure) and the vehicle (in-vehicle safety systems).
Intelligent Vehicle Safety Systems use Information and Communications Technologies for
providing solutions for improving road safety in particular in the pre-crash phase when the
accident can still be avoided or at least its severity significantly reduced. With these systems,
which can operate either autonomously on-board the vehicle, or be based on vehicle-tovehicle
or vehicle-to-infrastructure communication (co-operative systems), the number of
accidents and their severity can be reduced, leading equally to a reduction of the number of
fatalities and injuries.
Collisions during lane changes and involuntary lane departure are two of the most
important causes of accidents. This problem requires in-vehicle technology to help detect
and warn drivers of vehicles in adjacent lanes or when the vehicle is about to
unintentionally depart from the lane. According to the National Highway Traffic Safety
Agency (NHTSA) in the US, lane change and merge collisions could be cut in half by
new technologies. In Europe, a Dutch study expects a reduction of 37% in all side impact
collisions and a reduction of 24% of the single vehicle accidents due to lane departure
crash avoidance.
Location-enhanced emergency calls like in-vehicle e-Call have their primary benefit to
society of saving lives and in offering an increased sense of security. This is achieved by
improved call routing obtaining faster and improved information for dispatching relevant
resources, and most importantly improved information to locate the caller. What is of
paramount importance here is that the relevant resources are delivered to the person in
need as soon as possible, this can save up to 10% of the fatalities. An increased sense of
security is particularly relevant for European citizens travelling abroad. The secondary
benefits may be varied and include increased confidence in emergency service provision,
reduced stress, decreased reliance on verbal communication and reduced traffic
congestion 16 .
In the development and deployment of Intelligent Vehicle Safety Systems, priority should be
given to the systems with the best prospects. The eSafety Working Group 17 identified a
number of such systems, e.g. safe speed, lane support, safe following, pedestrian protection,
16
17
Caller Location in Telecommunication Networks in view of enhancing 112 Emergency Services:
Recommendations towards a European policy and implementation plan. 30 April 2002, Helios
Technology Ltd
The Final Report of the eSafety Working Group on Road Safety, November 2002
11

improved vision, driver monitoring and intersection safety systems. Each one of these systems
depend on a number of sensors, subsystems and technologies with varying degree of maturity,
some being still in the RTD phase and some already partially introduced to the market.
The potential contribution of the introduction of Intelligent Vehicle Safety Systems for
enhancing road safety and security has already been demonstrated by the industry in a number
of European research and technological development (RTD) projects. However, to realise the
potential benefits, the new systems have to be widely deployed in the marketplace. It is
therefore of paramount importance that the public and private sectors work together in
accelerating the development and deployment of these Intelligent Vehicle Safety Systems in
Europe. This collaborative approach is expected to result the quickest market penetration of
these systems. In compliance with the data protection legislation and the right to mobility,
other technologies such as increased monitoring of the driver condition and performance,
accident data recorders and electronic vehicle identification should also be examined, as
described in the European Road Safety Action Programme.
2.4. A prerequisite: a positive business case
From the manufacturers’ point of view, the introduction of Intelligent Vehicle Safety Systems
based on costly sensors, actuators, electronic components and subsystems increases the
manufacturing cost, power consumption and weight, making it also more difficult to meet the
environmental requirements imposed to new vehicle production. Furthermore, problems
associated with the reliability of embedded electronics and especially of the software have to
be solved. Market introduction of new functionality requires tackling liability, type-approval
and Human-Machine Interaction (HMI) issues as well as investments to the infrastructure.
The industry has demonstrated its capability to innovate and bring active safety systems to the
markets, as has been the case with ABS and ESP. The introduction of these technologies is a
very good example of the two main problems the industry is facing in bringing new systems
on the market.
First, if the pace of market introduction is dictated solely by the market economies and
competition, it can take a very long time. ABS was first introduced in the 1970’s, and now 30
years later still only 91% of new vehicles are equipped with ABS, with a 66% penetration on
the whole vehicle parc in Europe. The introduction of ESP has advanced a bit faster,
achieving 38% penetration of new vehicles sold and 16% of the whole vehicle parc in five
years after its introduction 18 .
Secondly, relying solely on the automotive manufacturers’ business case leads to introduction
of the new safety features in the high-end range of vehicles first, then into the mid-range
vehicles and finally to the small and compact cars. This can be easily understood by
comparing the price of the advanced safety systems, for example 2000 € for a collision
mitigation or adaptive cruise control system, with the selling price of the vehicles. As a
consequence the drivers most at risk, i.e. the young, are the last to benefit, as they tend to
drive the older and smaller cars.
Furthermore, more sophisticated software and electronic assistance systems tends to lead to
more complexity in repairing and maintaining the vehicles. As the cost of repair and
18
Source: Volkswagen Group research, 2001, German market
12

maintenance typically accounts for 40% of the total life-time cost of the vehicle, equalling the
purchase price, this is an important issue for the consumers.
Based on the above, it is clear that the wide-spread take-up of Intelligent Vehicle Safety
Systems cannot depend on the private business case only, and needs the full support of the
public sector, contributing to a positive public/private business case. This business case has to
be developed jointly with all actors involved, the automobile manufacturers, equipment
suppliers, motorway operators, telecommunication operators, service providers, automotive
after-sales players, insurance industry, road safety and user organisations, road authorities,
emergency service providers, Member States and the European Commission. The public and
private sectors must agree to co-operate, to decide on the role and responsibilities of each
partner, and take the appropriate actions.
The main mechanisms for the public sector intervention, in contributing to this business case,
are: promoting standardisation - leading to market harmonisation, larger volumes and lower
manufacturing costs; promoting awareness and information - leading to an increased demand
of safety systems and consumers’ willingness to pay for advanced safety features; and
working together with appropriate partners (public and private sectors) in introducing
financial incentives for the buyers of vehicles equipped with advanced safety systems. The
vehicle type approval legislation should be adapted, when necessary, to permit these systems,
or even mandate them, if appropriate.
Introduction of Intelligent Vehicle Safety Systems requires a well-functioning, competitive
maintenance and repair system that guarantees their good functionality over time. The
consumers should be able to choose between alternative providers of repair and maintenance
services. To this effect, the automotive industry and equipment suppliers should respect the
Commission Regulation with provisions for independent operators to have access to technical
information, training, tools and equipment 19 .
Finally, in addition to standardisation public authorities have a particular role in steering the
implementation of the appropriate infrastructures, including intelligent features, and putting
forward legislation enabling the wider deployment of ITS.
2.5. Contributing to pedestrian safety
In 2001 the European automotive industry (represented by ACEA) committed itself to
reducing the risk of pedestrians being killed and injured when struck by a vehicle. The
Commitment was an innovative approach to road safety, as it contained both passive and
active safety elements, as well as a commitment by the industry to progressively install
additional active safety devices, including ICT elements. Even though it has subsequently
been agreed that the passive safety elements should be supported by a directive 20 , the
additional active safety devices and ICT elements remain subject to the industry
Commitment.
19
20
Commission Regulation EC 1400/2002 of 31 July 2002
Proposal for a Directive of the European Parliament and of the Council relating to the protection of
pedestrians and other vulnerable road users in the event of a collision with a motor vehicle and
amending Directive 70/156/EEC, COM(2003) 67 final, 19.02.2003
13

3. RATIONALE FOR COMMUNITY ACTIONS
3.1. Introduction
Information and Communications Technologies (ICT) which enable the building of Intelligent
Vehicles for intelligent roads will help Europe to meet its expectations for mobility and
economic growth. ICT offer a set of tools which gives the industrial players an opportunity to
meet the challenges related to road safety. First generation Intelligent Vehicle Safety Systems,
such as ABS (Anti-lock Braking System) and ESP (Electronic Stability Programme) are
already contributing to reducing the number of accidents and fatalities.
A major responsibility for introducing new generation Intelligent Vehicle Safety Systems in
vehicles remains with the automotive industry, which is developing them in collaboration
with its suppliers, the telematics industry and supported by two other main industrial sectors,
the telecommunications and IT industries.
However, the industry cannot act on its own. The public sector has to work together with the
private sector in a concerted way. The European Commission has to act especially in relation
to its competencies such as Community RTD, vehicle type-approval procedures,
telecommunications and transport regulation, and in solving liability, standardisation and
other obstacles in the introduction of Intelligent Vehicle Safety Systems.
Europe’s citizens should be able to expect the same level of safety and support from the road
infrastructure for their mobility all over Europe, just as they can with regard to the safety
features of the vehicles. Further European level actions are required for defining and
harmonising the Member States’ technical requirements and investments to road and
communications infrastructure, especially those required by the future collaborative road
safety systems.
In many cases a positive private business case for the introduction of safety systems does not
exist, and further public sector intervention in the form of tax and insurance incentives is
required for speeding up the deployment of these systems.
3.2. European Commission taking the responsibility for European level public
sector actions
This Commission Communication brings forward the measures the Commission is proposing
to undertake to promote the development and deployment of Intelligent Vehicle Safety
Systems, and to remove barriers which prevent their large-scale introduction and take-up in
Europe.
The proposed Community actions fall into the following three categories:
(1) Promoting Intelligent Vehicle Safety Systems
(2) Adapting the regulatory and standardisation provisions
(3) Removing the societal and business obstacles
With these actions, the Commission intends to facilitate the development and large-scale
deployment of Intelligent Vehicle Safety Systems in Europe, in a way which allows the
European automotive industry to maintain and even increase its world-wide competitiveness,
at the same time benefiting society by reducing the number of road accidents and fatalities.
14

These systems, when deployed in sufficiently large scale, are expected to make a major
contribution to reducing the fatalities on European roads, and provide for the basic need for
Europe’s citizens: safe mobility.
Concerted efforts using techniques noted in this Communication will also help in gaining the
best value for Europe from the deployment of infrastructure management to achieve the three
goals of the White Paper on European Transport Policy of sustainable development, reducing
congestion and ensuring a more efficient use of the available modes of transport and
especially facilitating greater intermodality between transport modes.
3.3. Acting together at EU, national and regional level
Although the EU has a broad scope to act on road safety, achieving the targets set in the
White Paper on European Transport Policy cannot be the sole responsibility of the European
Union. Shared action encompassing all types of safety measures and all players at the EU,
national and regional level is needed. The European Strategy for a partnership approach and
proposed measures for improving road safety are brought forward in the European Road
Safety Action Programme: Halving the number of road accident victims in the European
Union by 2010: A shared responsibility.
A number of measures introduced in this plan contribute also to the goals of this
Communication. Examples of such measures are support to EuroNCAP in progressing
towards new methods and information to the consumers, further development of the CARE
accident database and complementing it with Accident Causation Data, elaboration of
common specifications for accident registration and improving methods for collecting
accident statistics in the Member States, and the study with the Member States on the need to
include new electronic systems in the framework of technical vehicle inspection and controls.
Shared action of the European Commission, Member States, industry and other public and
private stakeholders is also a pre-requisite in promoting the development, deployment and use
of Intelligent Vehicle Safety Systems. The Final Report of the eSafety Working Group
identified in all 28 actions, on most of which the Member States are expected to contribute.
Further to the actions that constitute this Communication, these include the following:
• Consolidate analyses from the existing EU, Member State and industry road accident
data which give information on the cause and circumstances of the accidents.
• Define a common format and structure for recording accident data in the EU
countries. Develop jointly an European Accident Causation Database.
• Set up a coordinated validation framework for operational tests for active safety
systems in the Member States.
• Develop public sector Road Maps which indicate the investments required for
improvements in the road networks and information infrastructure based on the
industrial Road Maps, and identify the steps needed for removing regulatory barriers.
• Identify existing specifications, and where necessary develop new specifications for
pan-European, standardised interoperable interfaces and communications protocols for
vehicle-vehicle and vehicle-infrastructure communications which will support
interactive, co-operative safety systems and services.
15

• Establish national liaison groups to co-ordinate the implementation and building up of
the E-112 service chain.
• Stimulate and support road users and fleet owners to buy vehicles with intelligent road
safety functions and to use safety-related services by incentives such as tax reductions,
lowering insurance premiums, and preferential treatment.
• Design and execute awareness campaigns that explain the benefits, functioning and
use of the Intelligent Vehicle Safety Systems to the consumers.
4. EUROPEAN COMMISSION ACTIONS
The Commission, in close collaboration with other stakeholders is proposing to undertake the
following actions to promote the development, deployment and use of Intelligent Integrated
Safety Systems in Europe, and to remove barriers which prevent their large-scale introduction
and take-up.
4.1. Promoting Intelligent Vehicle Safety Systems
Road safety requires concerted actions by all the safety stakeholders: the European
Commission, automotive and telecommunications industry and operators, equipment and
service suppliers, motorway operators, road authorities, insurance companies, road safety and
user organisations and others. In order to facilitate co-operation, the Commission will
continue to support a joint platform for all the road safety stakeholders, the eSafety Forum.
The objective of the Forum is to promote and monitor the implementation of the
recommendations identified by the eSafety Working Group, and to support the development,
deployment and use of Intelligent Vehicle Safety Systems. The Forum will provide for a
platform to encourage and review progress of the actions of all stakeholders, including
industry and the Member States, reporting to the Commission.
The future development of the above-mentioned safety functions requires further RTD in a
number of technologies. The overall target of Europe, as agreed by the Research Council
Barcelona in 2002 is to invest 3% of GDP on research by the year 2010. These increased
efforts with two thirds of the funding coming from the private sector should cover Intelligent
Vehicle Safety Systems as one of the priority areas. The Commission intends to use its 6 th
Framework Programme for Research and Technological Development (2002-2006) for
supporting research in this area, co-ordinated with national research programmes and
benefiting from the European Research Area (ERA) and international collaboration. The
critical task, in which the eSafety Forum can play a role, is determining the priorities for
further research based on analysis of accident causation data and the impact of potential
countermeasures. The international co-operation is expected to cover especially Human-
Machine Interaction, certification and testing methodology and procedures, harmonisation
and standardisation, legal issues, impact and socio-economic benefit analysis and
benchmarking/best practise.
Human-Machine Interaction with increasingly more complex in-vehicle systems is a major
concern. To tackle this important issue, the Commission published in 2000 a
Recommendation on Safe and Efficient In-vehicle Information and Communication
16

Systems 21 , which has been largely adopted by the industry. The Commission proposes now to
assess the situation in the light of technical progress, including the effects of the introduction
of nomadic devices in the vehicles, in collaboration with the industry and the Member States.
Further measures will be then proposed if deemed necessary. An important part of this work
is the development of workload assessment, testing and certification methodology and
procedures for complex in-vehicle working environments that involve interfacing with invehicle
devices for vehicle control, driver assistance and infotainment.
In cases where a vehicle is involved in an accident, an Emergency Call (e-Call) can be
initiated automatically, and accurate vehicle location and additional safety-related information
can be passed to the Public Service Answering Point (PSAP). Such information cuts
dramatically down the emergency response times, saving lives and reducing the consequences
of serious injuries, and also has the potential to allow correct response in case of accidents
involving hazardous goods. Building on the provision of the so-called E-112 legislation,
which is contained in the new electronic communications directive 22 , the Commission is
proposing an integrated strategy for Pan-European emergency services. These services will
build on the location-enhanced emergency services being implemented in the Member States
on the basis of deliberations in the joint industry–public sector CGALIES 23 group, and the
recently adopted Recommendation on the implementation of E-112 24 , but will include
provisions for more accurate location information and additional safety information. This
requires defining the interfaces between the vehicles and the telecommunications network,
and between the telecommunications network and the PSAPs, and solving the related liability
and responsibility issues.
Real-time traffic and travel information (RTTI) contributes greatly to safety. In order to
facilitate the access to the public sector data, and to enable the private and public sectors to
co-operate in the service provision, the Commission published in 2001 a Recommendation on
the deployment of Traffic and Travel services in Europe 25 . The Commission proposes now
further analysis and recommendations for accelerating the take-up of the measures for
accessing the public sector data, enabling the establishment of public-private partnerships,
and the provision of reliable, high-quality RTTI services in Europe. Furthermore, the
Commission may draw up in its TENs ITS Working Group recommendations or legislation
21
22
23
24
25
Commission Recommendation of 21 December 1999 on safe and efficient in-vehicle information and
communication systems: A European statement of principles on human machine interface Text with
EEA relevance (notified under document number C(1999) 4786) , published in the OJ L 19 of
25.1.2000
Directive 2002/21/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 7 March 2002 on a common
regulatory framework for electronic communications networks and services (Framework Directive) ;
published in OJ L 108 of 24.4.2002; Directive 2002/22/EC of the European Parliament and of the
Council of 7 March 2002 on universal service and users' rights relating to electronic communications
networks and services (Universal Service Directive); published in OJ L 108 of 24.4.2002; Directive
2002/58/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 12 July 2002 concerning the processing
of personal data and the protection of privacy in the electronic communications sector (Directive on
privacy and electronic communications); published in OJ L 201of 31.7.2002.
See the Final Report of CGALIES (Co-ordination Group for Access to Location Information by
Emergency Services), http://www.telematica.de/cgalies/
Commission Recommendation of 25/07/03 on the processing of caller location information in electronic
communication networks for the purpose of location-enhanced emergency call services, C(2003) 2657
final
Commission Recommendation on the development of a legal and business framework for participation
of the private sector in deploying telematics-based Traffic and Travel Information (TTI) services in
Europe, OJ L 199/20 24.7.2001
17

aimed at accelerating the deployment of Real-time Traffic and Travel Information services in
Europe.
18

Commission actions:
• To facilitate co-operation of all stakeholders, the Commission will continue to
support the eSafety Forum, aiming at a self-sustained platform.
The eSafety Forum will promote and review progress of the implementation of the
recommendations of the eSafety Working Group, and support the development,
deployment and use of Intelligent Vehicle Safety Systems. The Forum will also
promote the development of open platforms, open system architecture and user
awareness of Intelligent Vehicle Safety Systems. Where appropriate the Forum will
set up specific Working Groups 26 .
During an initial period of two years, the Commission will provide the necessary
support for the Forum. During this period the model for a self-sustained platform will
be established by the industry and the Member States, with the aim to shift the
responsibility to industrial partners at the end of 2004.
• The Commission will determine clear goals and priorities for further RTD under its
6 th Framework Programme, and pursue co-ordination with national programmes.
The Commission will invite the Forum to analyse existing accident causation data
and to identify clear goals and priorities for further RTD in Intelligent Vehicle Safety
Systems in industrial research, Community Research (Integrated Projects in the 6 th
FP) and national research programmes.
Furthermore, the Commission will pursue international co-operation in the
development of intelligent integrated road safety technologies.
• The Commission will determine what further actions are required on Human
Machine Interaction.
The Commission will invite the eSafety Forum to create a Working Group that will,
taking into account the reports by the Member States and the rapid development in
this area, develop further recommendations on HMI. The Commission will, on the
basis of these recommendations, examine if further actions are deemed necessary.
Furthermore, the Commission will promote through its RTD funding and cooperation
the development of workload assessment, testing and certification
methodology and procedures for complex in-vehicle working environments.
• The Commission will promote harmonised, pan-European in-vehicle emergency call
(e-Call) service that builds on the location-enhanced emergency call E-112.
26
For this purpose the eSafety Forum is invited to set up a Working Group to establish
consensus on the implementation of the pan-European in-vehicle emergency call (e-
Call), based on the recently published Recommendation and the results of ongoing
RTD actions.
These are new eSafety Forum Working Groups, operating under the Forum. They should not to be
mixed up with the eSafety Working Group which was established in April 2002 and published its Final
Report with 28 Recommendations in November 2002.
19

Furthermore, the Commission encourages the industry in establishing data
requirements, data transfer protocols, interface specifications and routing and
handling procedures for the enhanced in-vehicle e-Calls, and standardisation in ETSI
and CEN.
• The Commission will analyse the progress on the provision of Real-Time Traffic and
Travel Information (RTTI) in Europe, and propose further actions.
The Commission will invite the eSafety Forumto analyse the implications of the
RTTI services in road safety including emerging new services based on broadcasting
and mobile communications, taking into account the Member States’ responses to the
TTI Recommendation. Special attention is given to pan-European services and
sustainable business models.
On the basis of this analysis and the recommendations, the Commissionmay consider the
need presenting a progress report to the Council and the European Parliament in view of
keeping focus on the issues and proposing further measures when necessary.
4.2. Adapting the regulatory and standardisation provisions
Ultra wide band (UWB) automotive radar (SRR) operating at 24 GHz is considered to be a
key technology for the rapid and cost-effective introduction of many Intelligent Vehicle
Safety Systems. SRR systems of this type could validate relatively quickly active safety
concepts, while giving other technologies the time to mature. However, regulatory barriers to
the market-led introduction of this technology remain, in particular concerning access to
appropriate harmonised radio spectrum in the EU. Such obstacles will affect timely
achievement of Community road safety goals if not solved co-operatively with the EU
Member States within the pan-European Electronic Communication Committee (ECC) of
CEPT 27 . The Commission now proposes to take the necessary actions to support the removal
of regulatory barriers to a time-limited legal use of the 24 GHz spectrum for automotive
short-range radar, and to support the standardisation of SRR systems in ETSI.
Before new passenger cars and motorcycles can be placed on the market within the European
Union they must have obtained EC Whole Vehicle Type–Approval, indicating compliance
with the requirements of a number of separate EC Directives. Other types of vehicles, e.g.
trucks and buses, etc. may also use these Directives as the basis for gaining access to the
European market. Nonetheless, the Commission also acknowledges that non-legislative
market initiatives should be pursued in order to bring forward improvements in vehicles. The
Commission intends to review the existing situation regarding the introduction of Intelligent
Vehicle Safety Systems, determine what legislative and non-legislative actions may be
required, and wherever necessary adjust requirements to accommodate new technologies.
While the vehicles are equipped with an increasing number of electronic subsystems,
telematics platforms and/or portable terminals, the need for a responsive standardisation
process becomes extremely important. Standardised solutions guarantee wide market
acceptance, higher volumes and lower costs, benefiting both the manufacturers and the
consumers. The Commission proposes further measures, through a standardisation mandate
and in collaboration with industry, to initiate a process in the European Standardisation
Organisations to analyse the specific needs and priorities of the Intelligent Vehicle Safety
27
Conference Européenne des Administrations des postes et des télécommunications
20

Systems for accelerated standardisation in ISO, CEN and ETSI of emerging communications
protocols for the vehicle-vehicle and vehicle-infrastructure communications, and for
promotion of the development of open platforms, open system architecture, and standard
software, communication protocols, services and human-machine interactions.
Commission Actions:
• The Commission will take the necessary steps to support the removal of legal barriers
to a time-limited use of 24 GHz UWB short-range radar, in particular concerning
harmonised access to the radio spectrum in the EU.
The Commission will co-ordinate, via the appropriate Community mechanisms (Radio
Spectrum Committee and Telecommunications Conformity Assessment Mechanism 28 )
and with the CEPT, the investigation of possible regulatory solutions which will
enable short-range radars to be rapidly implemented at 24 GHz for an initial period,
while providing adequate protection to other potentially affected radio services. A
long-term transition of radar operation to 77 GHz is expected.
Furthermore, the Commission has recently addressed a standardisation mandate
(M329) to the European Standardisation Organisations inviting them to prepare
harmonised standards to be recognised under Directive 1999/5/EC (the R&TTE
Directive). ETSI will execute the mandated work.
The mandate foresees, in a first phase, the development of a work programme to be
further discussed with Member States in the standing committee established by the
Directive. Subsequently the European standardisation organisations will develop
standards in accordance with priorities identified by the Member States.
• The Commission will review the existing EC vehicle type-approval legislation.
The Commission will determine what actions (legislative and non-legislative) may be
required to bring forward road safety improvements obtainable with Intelligent
Vehicle Safety Systems in vehicles.
• The Commission will invite the European Standardisation Organisations to identify
priorities and prepare a standardisation programme.
28
The Commission will invite the European Standardisation Organisations, through a
standardisation mandate, to identify the actual status of standardisation work at
European and international level in support of Intelligent Vehicle Safety Systems, to
identify specific additional needs and priorities for standardisation and subsequently
to prepare for a common standardisation work programme, taking into account the
need to maintain coherence with activities such as standardisation in support of
eEurope and standardisation in support of the technologies proposed Directive on
interoperability for Electronic Fee Collection on European roads.
Respectively the standing regulatory committee for the Radio Spectrum Decision (676/2002/EC) and
for the RTT&E Directive (1999/5/EC)
21

4.3. Removing the societal and business obstacles
The costs of road fatalities, injuries and accidents have been estimated in the Commission
White paper. Also, the societal benefits of specific safety applications/functions have been
estimated in a number of reviews, but not recently in a comprehensive manner. The data on
societal benefits and cost/benefit ratio are incomplete and not kept up-to-date with latest
technological developments. Therefore, the Commission proposes measures to estimate
societal benefits obtainable through the reduction in accidents, serious injuries and material
damage, including an analysis of the reduction in medical care and other expenses in the
Member States and enlargement states, and benefits like improved journey times, reduced
congestion and environmental impact.
The legal and liability issues of the market introduction of Intelligent Vehicle Safety
Systems are very complex, involving new risks to the customers, the society and above all the
manufacturers in the terms of product liability and increased financial risks such as call-back
campaigns. The risks regarding product liability are not only technological, but also include
human factors such as dependability, controllability, comprehensibility, predictability and
misuse robustness. The Commission proposes measures for developing a methodology for
risk benefit assessment, achieving an industrial and societal consensus on a European Code of
Practice, and for establishing guidelines for the market introduction of Intelligent Vehicle
Safety Systems.
The market introduction of Intelligent Vehicle Safety Systems involves policy, technological,
societal, business, legal and consumer aspects. The automotive industry undertakes market
introductions based on their own assessment of the technological readiness, the market
situation and competition and the availability of supporting infrastructure and incentives.
From the public sector point of view, it has to be possible to estimate the market introduction
time-table and to use this information to plan for investments and to determine what other
measures (incentives, removing regulatory barriers) are required for enabling take-up.
Furthermore, these measures have to guarantee the same level of safety and support from the
road infrastructure in all European countries. The Commission proposes to promote the
development of Industry Road Maps, and based on them, elaborate with the Member States
Public Sector Road Maps, which predict product development and deployment, and indicate
the investments required for improvements in the road networks and information
infrastructure base, and identify the steps needed for removing regulatory barriers.
Commission Actions:
• The Commission will estimate the socio-economic benefits.
The Commission will undertake a study to estimate the socio-economic benefits
which can be obtained through the introduction of Intelligent Vehicle Safety Systems.
This study will involve all mobility actors.
• The Commission will support the development of an European Code of Practice.
The Commission will promote through its RTD funding and co-operation the
development of a methodology for risk benefit assessment of Intelligent Vehicle
Safety Systems.
Furthermore, the Commission will invite an eSafety Forum Working Group to pursue
an industrial and societal consensus on a European Code of Practice, applicable to
22

oth system design specifications and validation procedures, and to formulate
practical guidelines which facilitate the market introduction of Intelligent Vehicle
Safety Systems.
• The Commission will promote the elaboration of Industrial Road Maps and the
corresponding Public Sector Road Maps.
The Commission will invite the eSafety Forum to elaborate Road Maps for the
development and deployment of Intelligent Vehicle Safety Systems. Furthermore, the
Commission will launch consultations of Member States and all other public sector
actors on these Industry Road Maps, and based on the results of these consultations,
elaborates with the Member States regularly updated Public Sector Road Maps which
define and indicate the time-table for the required investments and other public sector
measures.
Furthermore, the Commission will review the progress regularly, and propose further
measures when necessary, in particular in cases where the market take-up is reluctant..
4.4. Other actions
The European Commission will also contribute towards the following actions
undertaken by the industry.
• The industry will develop a methodology to assess the potential impact of the
introduction of the Intelligent Vehicle Safety Systems and technologies in Europe,
based on the accident causation data and including the analysis of combined systems
(fusion of sensors, integration and use of multiple active safety systems together).
The Commission will support this development through RTD funding, and by
encouraging the establishment of a Working Group on impact assessment.
• The industry will develop a validation methodology and procedures for vehicles
equipped with Intelligent Vehicle Safety Systems.
First steps towards the development of validation methodology has been taken in the
ongoing RTD projects. The Commission will support the further development of
validation methodology and standards of the design and use of Intelligent Vehicle
Safety Systems, based on the Code of Practice (see 4.3) through follow-up actions.
• The industry will define, produce, maintain and certify a European digital map
database with road safety attributes.
The Commission offers for use by industry the results of existing Community
supported research, which define preliminary requirements for a European digital road
map database. Based on these results, the public sector and industry will jointly decide
on the needs for additional road safety attributes for driver-support for information
and warning purposes, such as speed limits information and road configuration data.
The Commission will also support, through the eSafety Forum, the industry-led efforts
for the creation of a public-private partnership to produce, maintain, certify and
distribute this digital road map data base.
23

5. REPORTING
Monitoring of the progress of the recommendations of the eSafety Working Group will be an
important part of the activity. The eSafety Forum with its wide membership will be best
placed to perform this important function.
• The eSafety Forum will, as an important part of its activity, monitor and report to the
Commission on the implementation of the actions and recommendations of the
eSafety Working Group.
• The Commission will support this activity through RTD funding (Specific Support
Actions).
The Commission will examine the recommendations of the eSafety Forum and, if needed,
report to Council and European Parliament on the progress achieved and further actions
needed to support the development and deployment of Intelligent Vehicle Safety Systems.
24

ANNEX 1: GLOSSARY OF TERMS
ABS Anti lock brake system: Electronically controlled braking system, which
avoids wheel lock, when braking under slippery road conditions
ACEA Association des Constructeurs Européens d' Automobiles (European car
manufacturers association)
ADAS Advanced Driver Assistant Systems
CARE Community Road Accident Database
CEN Comité Européen de Standardisation (European Committee for
Standardisation)
CEPT Conférence Européenne des Postes et des Télécommunications
CGALIES Co-ordination Group on Access to Location Information by Emergency
Services
DAB Digital Audio Broadcast
DVB Digital Video Broadcast
E-112 Location enhancement of all emergency call. It is a new legislation that
requires all mobile and fixed telephone operators to make available location
information for every emergency call from July 2003
e-Call In-vehicle emergency call. e-calls originating from vehicles, based on E-112
structure with an accurate location and other safety-related information to be
routed to the Public Service Answering Points
ECC Electronic Communication Committee
EGNOS European Geo-stationary Navigation Overlay System
ERA European Research Area
ESP Electronic Stability Programme
ETSI European Telecommunication Standard Institute
EU European Union
EuroNCAP European New Car Assessment Programme
FVD Floating Vehicle Data
GALILEO European Satellite radio navigation infrastructure providing navigation and
positioning services from 2008 onwards
25

GDP Gross Domestic Product
GPS Global Positioning System
GPRS General Packet Radio Service
GSM Global System for Mobile telecommunications
HMI Human Machine Interaction
ICT Information and Communications Technologies
ISO International Organisation for Standardisation
IST Information Society Technologies
ITS Intelligent Transport Systems
NHTSA National Highway Traffic Safety Agency
PSAP Public Service Answering Point (service for emergency calls, fixed and
wireless)
RDS-TMC Traffic Message Channel (TMC) is a specific application of the FM Radio
Data System (RDS) used for broadcasting real-time traffic and weather
information
RTD Research and Technological Development
RTTI Real-Time Traffic and Travel Information
SMS Short Message Text
SRR Short Range Radar
TEN Trans European Networks
UMTS Universal mobile Telecommunication Systems
UWB Ultra Wide Band
WAP Wireless Application
26

ANNEX 2: SUMMARY OF CONSULTATIONS
All major road safety stakeholders have been consulted. The consultation process, with an
emphasis on industrial issues, consisted of two eSafety High-Level Meetings and an eSafety
Working Group of some 40 experts. The Member States were consulted through the High-
Level Group on Road Safety, in collaboration with DG TREN.
The eSafety High-Level Meetings and the eSafety Working Group
In April 2002, the Commission organised, together with the automotive industry and other
stakeholders, a High-Level Meeting on eSafety.
The HL Meeting had representatives from the following stakeholders: automobile
manufacturers, equipment suppliers, motorway operators, telecommunication operators,
service providers, insurance industry, road safety and user organisations, road authorities,
emergency service providers, Member States and the European Commission.
As a result of this meeting, the partners decided to establish an eSafety Working Group
consisting of some 40 experts, and mandated it to propose a strategy for accelerating the
research, development, deployment and use of ICT-based intelligent active safety systems for
improving road safety in Europe. This Working Group had a limited membership, but
nevertheless had participants from all important stakeholders.
The eSafety Working Group concluded its work in November 2002 and published its Final
Report, with 28 Recommendations. This Final Report was discussed by the Second eSafety
High-Level Group in November 2002, with the following conclusions:
This 2nd High-Level meeting, gathering some 60 representatives from industries, European
Commission and other public authorities discussed the Final Report of the eSafety Working
Group made the following conclusions:
(1) Approved the Final Report as a basis for the next steps in the public-private eSafety
initiative
(2) Decided to establish an eSafety Forum as a more permanent body for promoting
eSafety and monitoring progress
(3) Made the e-Call the 1st priority in eSafety
(4) Acknowledged the Commission’s plans to bring forward a Communication with
community actions in 2003
(5) The 2nd High-Level Meeting made also conclusions related to acting together on
eSafety, role of the Member States, the e-Call, Human-Machine Interaction, eSafety
user Demand, the eSafety Forum and the next steps
The High-Level Group on Road Safety
The High-Level Group on Road Safety, consisting of representatives from the Member States,
was given a full briefing on the eSafety initiative in November 2002. Furthermore, the Road
Platform Meeting, consisting mainly of Member States road authorities and motorway
operators, were briefed of the initiative in March 2003. In both meetings the Member States
27

have welcomed the eSafety Initiative, and expressed the wish for the Commission to come up
with further policy measures regarding eSafety (the Commission Communication).
SUMMARY OF THE RESULTS OF THE CONSULTATION
• The second eSafety High-Level Meeting endorsed the Final Report as the basis for further
actions in advancing the use of ICT for improving road safety in Europe and welcomed the
Commission’s plan to draft a further policy measures.
• The Member States welcomed the eSafety Initiative, and expressed the wish for the
Commission to come up with further policy measures regarding eSafety.
28

29.7.2003 EN
Official Journal of the European Union
L 189/49
COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION
of 25 July 2003
on the processing of caller location information in electronic communication networks for the
purpose of location-enhanced emergency call services
(notified under document number C(2003) 2657)
(Text with EEA relevance)
THE COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES,
Having regard to the Directive 2002/21/EC on a common
regulatory framework for electronic communications and
services (the ‘Framework Directive’) ( 1 ), and in particular Article
19 thereof,
Whereas:
(1) Decision 91/396/EEC on the introduction of a single
European emergency call number ( 2 ) required Member
States to ensure that the number 112 was introduced in
public telephone networks as the single European emergency
call number by 31 December 1992, with under
certain conditions, a possibility for derogation until 31
December 1996.
(2) Directive 2002/22/EC on universal service and users'
rights relating to electronic communications networks
and services (the ‘Universal Service Directive’) ( 3 ), requires
public telephone network operators (hereafter ‘operators’)
to make caller location information available to
authorities handling emergencies, to the extent technically
feasible, for all calls made to the single European
emergency call number 112. Directive 2002/58/EC
concerning the processing of personal data and the
protection of privacy in the electronic communications
sector (the ‘Directive on privacy and electronic communications’)
( 4 ) establishes that providers of public
communications networks and services may override the
elimination of the presentation of calling line identification
and the temporary denial or absence of consent of a
subscriber or user for the processing of location data, on
a per-line basis for organisations dealing with emergency
calls and recognised as such by a Member State,
including law enforcement agencies, ambulance services
and fire brigades, for the purpose of responding to such
calls.
(3) Although this Recommendation is concerned with location-enhanced
112, it is understood that parallel national
emergency call numbers will be enhanced with the same
( 1 ) OJ L 108, 24.4.2002, p. 33.
( 2 ) OJ L 217, 6.8.1991, p. 31.
( 3 ) OJ L 108, 24.4.2002, p. 31.
( 4 ) OJ L 201, 31.7.2002, p. 37.
(2003/558/EC)
functionality and following the same principles. Organisations
operating private telecommunication installations
are not affected by this Recommendation.
(4) For the successful implementation of E112 services
throughout the Community, implementation issues must
be addressed and timescales for the introduction of new
systems coordinated. The Coordination Group on Access
to Location Information by Emergency Services
(CGALIES) established by the Commission in May 2000
as a partnership of public service and private sector
players has allowed players of different sectors to discuss
and find agreement on the principles for harmonised
and timely implementation.
(5) Following on from the recommendation by CGALIES,
providers of the public telephone network or service
should use their best effort to determine and forward the
most reliable caller location information available for all
calls to the single European emergency call number 112.
(6) During the introductory phase of E112 services, application
of the best efforts principle is considered preferable
to mandating specific performance characteristics for
location determination. However, as public safety
answering points and emergency services gain practical
experiences with location information, their requirements
will become more defined. Moreover, location
technology will continue to evolve, both within mobile
cellular networks and satellite location systems. Therefore,
the best effort approach will need to be reviewed
after the initial phase.
(7) It is important for all Member States to develop common
technical solutions and practices for the provision of
E112. The elaboration of common technical solutions
should be pursued through the European standardisation
organisations, in order to facilitate the introduction of
E112, create interoperable solutions and decrease the
costs of implementation to the European Union.

L 189/50 Official Journal of the European Union
EN
(8) A harmonised solution across Europe would serve interoperability
for advanced safety applications, such as calls
which can be originated manually or automatically by
an in-vehicle telematics terminal. These calls can provide
additional information, for instance on the number of
passengers in a car or bus, on compass-direction, on
crash-sensor indicators, on the type of load of dangerous
goods or on health records of drivers and passengers.
With the high volume of cross-border traffic in Europe,
there is a growing need for a common data transfer
protocol for passing such information to public safety
answering points and emergency services in order to
avoid the risk of confusion or a wrong interpretation of
data passed.
(9) The arrangements for forwarding location information
by operators to public safety answering points should be
established in a transparent and non-discriminatory way
including, where appropriate, any cost aspects.
(10) The effective implementation of location-enhanced emergency
call services requires that the caller's location as
determined by the provider of the public telephone
network or service is transmitted automatically to any
appropriate public safety answering point that can
receive and use the location data provided.
(11) Directive 2002/58/EC concerning the processing of
personal data and the protection of privacy in the electronic
communications sector (the ‘Directive on privacy
and electronic communications’) generally requires that
privacy and data protection rights of individuals should
be fully respected and adequate technical and organisational
security measures should be implemented for that
purpose. However, it allows the use of location data by
emergency services without consent of the user
concerned. In particular, Member States should ensure
that there are transparent procedures governing the way
in which a provider of a public telecommunications
network and/or service may override the temporary
denial or absence of consent of a user for the processing
of location data, on a per-line basis for organisations
dealing with emergency calls and that are recognised as
such by a Member State.
(12) Actions conducted in the context of the Community
action programme in the field of Civil Protection (hereinafter
‘Civil Protection Action Programme’) ( 1 ) should aim
to contribute to the integration of civil protection objectives
in other Community policies and actions as well as
to the consistency of the programme with other
Community actions. This entitles the Commission to
implement actions aiming at increasing the degree of
preparedness of organisations involved in civil protec-
( 1 ) OJ L 327, 21.12.1999, p. 53.
tion in the Member States, by enhancing their ability to
respond to emergencies and improving the techniques
and methods of response and immediate aftercare. This
may include the handling and use of location information
associated to E112 emergency calls by public safety
answering points and emergency services.
(13) To achieve the objectives of this Recommendation, the
need for a continued dialogue between public network
operators and service providers and public authorities
including emergency services becomes even stronger.
(14) When reporting on the situation of E112 implementation,
national authorities should address any relevant
technical feasibility issue that hinders the introduction of
E112 for specific categories of end-users, as well as the
technical requirements for handling emergency calls that
may originate from SMS and telematic data services.
(15) The measures set out in this Recommendation are in
accordance with the advisory opinion of the Communications
Committee set up by Article 22 of Directive
2002/21/EC,
HEREBY RECOMMENDS THAT:
29.7.2003
1. Member States should apply the following harmonised
conditions and principles to the provision of caller location
information to emergency services for all calls to the single
European emergency call number 112.
2. For the purposes of this Recommendation, the following
definitions should apply:
(a) ‘emergency service’ means a service, recognised as such
by the Member State, that provides immediate and
rapid assistance in situations where there is a direct
risk to life or limb, individual or public health or
safety, to private or public property, or the environment
but not necessarily limited to these situations.
(b) ‘location information’ means in a public mobile
network the data processed indicating the geographic
position of a user's mobile terminal and in a public
fixed network the data about the physical address of
the termination point.
(c) ‘E112’ means an emergency communications service
using the single European emergency call number,
112, which is enhanced with location information of
the calling user.
(d) ‘public safety answering point’ means a physical location
where emergency calls are received under the
responsibility of a public authority.

29.7.2003 L 189/51
Official Journal of the European Union
EN
3. Member States should draw up detailed rules for public
network operators, to include, inter alia, the provisions in
points 4 to 9 below.
4. For every emergency call made to the European emergency
call number 112, public telephone network operators
should, initiated by the network, forward (push) to public
safety answering points the best information available as to
the location of the caller, to the extent technically feasible.
For the intermediate period up to the conclusion of the
review as referred to in point 13 below, it is acceptable
that operators make available location information on
request only (pull).
5. Fixed public telephone network operators should make
available the installation address of the line from which the
emergency call is made.
6. Public telephone network operators should provide location
information in a non-discriminatory way, and in particular
should not discriminate between the quality of information
provided concerning their own subscribers and
other users. In the case of the fixed networks, other users
include users of public pay phones; in the case of mobile
networks or mobility applications, other users include
roamers or visiting users, or, where appropriate, users of
mobile terminals which can not be identified by the
subscriber or user number.
7. All location information provided should be accompanied
by an identification of the network on which the call originates.
8. Public telephone network operators should keep sources of
location information, including address information, accurate
and up-to-date.
9. For each emergency call for which the subscriber or user
number has been identified, public telephone network
operators should provide the capability to public safety
answering points and emergency services of renewing the
location information through a call back functionality
(pulling) for the purpose of handling the emergency.
10. In order to facilitate data transfer between operators and
public safety answering points, Member States should
encourage the use of a common open interface standard,
and in particular for a common data transfer protocol,
adopted by the European Telecommunications Standards
Institute (ETSI), where available. Such a standard should
include the necessary flexibility to accommodate future
requirements as they may arise, for instance from invehicle
telematics terminals. Member States should ensure
that the interface is best suited to the effective handling of
emergencies.
11. In the context of the obligation for E112 services
prescribed by the Universal Service Directive, Member
States should provide adequate information to their citizens
about the existence, use and benefits of E112 services.
Citizens should be informed that 112 connects them to
emergency services all across the European Union and that
their location will be forwarded. They should also be
informed about the identity of the emergency services that
will receive their location information and of other necessary
details to guarantee fair processing of their personal
data.
12. In the context of the continuous evolution of concepts and
technologies, Member States are encouraged to foster and
support the development of services for emergency assistance,
for instance to tourists and travellers and for the
transport of dangerous goods by road or rail, including
handling procedures for forwarding location and other
emergency or accident related information to public safety
answering points; to support the development and implementation
of common interface specifications in ensuring
Europe-wide interoperability of such services; and to
encourage the use of location technologies with high precision
such as third generation cellular network location
technologies and Global Navigation Satellite Systems.
13. Member States should require their national authorities to
report to the Commission on the situation of E112 implementation
by the end of 2004 so that the Commission can
undertake a review taking into account the emerging
requirements from public safety answering points and
emergency services and the evolutions and availability of
technological capabilities for location determination.
14. This Recommendation is addressed to the Member States.
Done at Brussels, 25 July 2003.
For the Commission
Erkki LIIKANEN
Member of the Commission

COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES
Brussels, 14.9.2005
COM(2005) 431 final
COMMUNICATION FROM THE COMMISSION TO THE COUNCIL, THE
EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT, THE EUROPEAN ECONOMIC AND SOCIAL
COMMITTEE AND THE COMMITTEE OF THE REGIONS
The 2 nd eSafety Communication
BRINGING ECALL TO CITIZENS
EN EN

COMMUNICATION FROM THE COMMISSION TO THE COUNCIL, THE
EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT, THE EUROPEAN ECONOMIC AND SOCIAL
COMMITTEE AND THE COMMITTEE OF THE REGIONS
1. INTRODUCTION
The 2 nd eSafety Communication
BRINGING ECALL TO CITIZENS
In the Communication i2010 – A European Information Society for Growth and
Employment the Commission presents its strategy for the information society up to 2010.
The i2010 initiative recognizes the importance of the transport sector, accounting for 10% of
Europe’s GDP and employment, and the significance of the sector for ICT research and
development. Indeed safe and efficient transport and mobility services are essential for the
achieving the Lisbon goals of growth and jobs.
To help to make progress towards these goals, the Commission will use all its instruments -
regulatory tools in the area of telecommunications, research funds, and political initiatives. To
this end, the Commission will launch a Flagship Initiative “The Intelligent Car” as part of
the i2010 strategy 1 .
The present Communication, dealing with the urgent and practical actions needed to roll-out
eCall, the pan-European in-vehicle emergency call, is the first building block of the
Intelligent Car 2 initiative.
Increasing road safety is a human and economic necessity. In 2004, the number of road
fatalities in the 25 Member States of the European Union was 43.000. Without urgent
measures, the ambitious target of reducing this to 25.000 road deaths by the year 2010 3 will
not be met. The carnage on European roads will continue, creating immeasurable human
suffering. The costs to our health care system will remain huge, and our economies will be
burdened by loss of productivity and large-scale material damage.
Technologies that can save lives and reduce the severity of injuries exist today. In the first
eSafety Communication 4 the Commission proposed actions to develop and deploy Intelligent
Vehicle Safety Systems that are based on advanced Information and Communication
Technologies (ICT). These systems can prevent accidents from happening, mitigate their
consequences and aid in rescue if accidents do take place.
Since the adoption of the first eSafety Communication, considerable progress has been made,
and many eSafety technologies, systems and services are ready for deployment. One such
system is the pan-European in-vehicle emergency call, eCall.
1
Communication from the Commission: i2010 – A European Information Society for growth and
employment, COM(2005) 229 Final, 1.6.2005
2
In the context of the i2010 Communication, “Car” includes cars, trucks, buses and motorbikes
3
European Road Safety Action Programme : Halving the number of road accident victims in the
European Union by 2010 : A shared responsibility, COM 2003(311) final 2.6.2003
4
Information and Communications Technologies for Safe and Intelligent Vehicles, COM(2003) 542
Final, 15.9.2003
EN 2 EN

In case of an accident, the eCall device in the car will transmit an emergency call that
automatically goes to the nearest emergency service. eCall can be triggered manually, but in
case of a severe accident the car will send it automatically. The life-saving feature of eCall is
the accurate information it provides on the location of the accident site: the emergency
services are notified immediately, and they know exactly where to go. This results in a drastic
reduction in the rescue time.
The large-scale roll-out of eCall is a priority goal of the eSafety initiative. Since 2002, the
stakeholders have worked together and developed an implementation plan for eCall.
However, without urgent actions from the side of the Member States the deployment of
eCall could be substantially delayed.
2. TOWARDS THE PAN-EUROPEAN IN-VEHICLE EMERGENCY CALL (ECALL) SERVICE
A key recommendation of the first eSafety Communication was the establishment of a
harmonised, pan-European in-vehicle emergency call (eCall) service that builds on the
single European emergency number 112.
There are over 1.7 million accidents that require medical help in Europe per year, and many
more that need other types of assistance. After the accident the people in the car may be in
shock, not know their location, be unable to communicate it or unable to use a mobile phone.
In all these cases eCall helps: it can drastically cut the emergency response times, save lives
and reduce the severity of injuries. When implemented, the socio-economic benefits of eCall
will be huge.
Significant progress towards the full-scale roll-out of eCall has been achieved. The eCall
Driving Group that was established to foresee the implementation has set 2009 as a target
year for full roll-out.
However, the setting-up of a full emergency chain for eCall needs the co-operation of many
authorities. This co-operation has been slow to materialize and in many Member States it is
completely absent. The need to modernize the emergency services is recognized, but is not
carried out as a result of lack of funding or organisational complexities.
The Commission strongly urges the national and regional governments to act and to
invest in the necessary emergency care infrastructure for eCall, with the view to launch
the full pan-European service in 2009.
2.1 eCall: How does it work?
The in-vehicle eCall is an emergency call generated either manually by the vehicle occupants
or automatically via activation of in-vehicle sensors after an accident. When activated, the invehicle
eCall device will establish an emergency call carrying both voice and data
directly to the nearest emergency services (normally the nearest 112 Public Safety
Answering Point, PSAP), see Figure 1. The voice call enables the vehicle occupants to
communicate with the trained eCall operator. At the same time, a minimum set of data will
be sent to the eCall operator receiving the voice call.
The minimum set of data contains information about the incident including time, precise
location, vehicle identification, eCall status (as a minimum, indication if eCall has been
manually or automatically triggered) and information about a possible service provider.
EN 3 EN

2.2 Why do we need eCall ?
According to the results of an analysis conducted by the E-MERGE 5 project funded by the
European Commission, an eCall system that relays the accurate location of the accident to the
PSAP and the emergency services will allow a reduction of response time to the accident
of about 50% in rural areas and up to 40% in urban areas. When medical care for
severely injured people is available at an earlier time after the accident, the death rate and
severity of trauma resulting from the injuries can be significantly reduced. This is known as
the Golden Hour Principle of accident medicine.
Figure 1: eCall operating principle
Cost-benefit estimations for eCall carried within the E-MERGE project and the SEiSS study 6
indicate that in EU-25 up to 2.500 lives can be saved per year, with up to 15 % reduction
in the severity of injuries. These estimates were based on the CARE accident data base 7
from 2002.
Road accidents also lead to congestion and possibly secondary accidents. As a result of
shorter rescue time, eCall can reduce congestion. The above-mentioned studies indicate
that this reduction may be up to 20%. Additionally, other road users can be more quickly
informed about the accident.
Considering the total impact of eCall estimated by the SEiSS study, the annual accident cost
savings are estimated to be up to 22 billion € and the annual congestion cost savings up to 4
billion €, which brings the total annual benefits up to 26 billion €. Compared to these
benefits, the investments needed are relatively small, 150 € per vehicle and up to 50,000 € to
upgrade a Public Safety Answering Point (PSAP) 8 . On the basis of this initial investment per
5
See http://www.gstforum.org/en/subprojects/rescue/
6
Exploratory Study on the potential socio-economic impact of the introduction of Intelligent Safety
Systems in Road Vehicles, see
http://europa.eu.int/information_society/activities/esafety/call_4/index_en.htm.
7
http://europa.eu.int/comm/transport/care/index_en.htm
8
Estimates of the SEiSS study: Based on volume production of the in-vehicle unit and upgrade of PSAPs
that already are able to process location information of E112 calls.
EN 4 EN

PSAP, and adding the costs for training their staff and to ensure adequate language support, it
brings the annual total costs up to 4,550 million € in EU 25, including the in-vehicle
systems. To calculate this amount, the number of necessary PSAPs in EU 25 has been
estimated in average to be one PSAP per every 31,000 inhabitants, with 60 staff members per
PSAP.
The above-mentioned figures indicate a substantial benefit-cost ratio for eCall. Even with
a lower estimated success rate and higher costs the benefit-cost ratio stays positive,
confirming the soundness of the investment into the eCall service.
2.3 Why does eCall use 112?
The aim of the eCall project is to implement a pan-European emergency service that can
be used by all vehicles in Europe, regardless of their make, country of registration and their
location. Europeans travel abroad in their cars more and more frequently, and therefore a pan-
European interoperable service is a prerequisite for eCall.
The single European emergency number 112 was introduced to offer this type of service
for emergency calls by a Council Decision in 1991 9 . Calls to this number are routed to the
nearest Public Safety Answering Point (PSAP) in the different European countries. Calls
can be made from any phone without charge, and they normally receive priority routing.
More and more of the 180 million calls to the emergency services per year originate from
mobile phones (currently 60-70%). For about 15% of these calls, the location cannot be
accurately determined, leading to a significant delay in dispatching help and even inability
to send it.
The Universal Service Directive adopted in 2002 10 stipulates the obligation that the public
network operators make the caller location of all calls to the extent technically feasible
available to the emergency services 11 . The 112 calls with location information are known as
E112 calls.
Implementation of the location capability for processing the E112 calls in the PSAPs also
benefits eCall. After this investment, the cost of upgrading the PSAPs up to eCall level is
considered to be relatively small. Using 112 enables building of an eCall service that is
truly pan-European, based on approved Directives, with a relatively small investment.
9 Council Decision of 29 July 1991on the introduction of a single European emergency call number
(91/396/EEC), Published in the Official Journal L 217, 6.8.1991, p. 31
10 Directive 2002/22/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 7 March 2002 on universal
service and users' rights relating to electronic communications networks and services (Universal Service
Directive); published in OJ L 108, 24.4.2002
11 For all calls to the 112 number, the network operator either sends the location information (push) or
makes it available on request (pull). This function that is now being implemented in about 50% of the
Member States is called the enhanced 112 or E112. The location information is in most cases the
location of the wireless cell (so called Cell-ID)
EN 5 EN

The Directive on Privacy and Electronics Communications 12 contains provisions for
safeguarding the personal data and protecting the privacy in electronic communications.
However, in the case of a real emergency, it is considered that need for assistance overrides
the need for privacy. The directive therefore allows the processing of location information and
other personal data for organisations dealing with emergency calls.
2.4 Road Map for a full-scale roll-out by 2009
The eCall Driving Group was established to produce a framework architecture and a
business model for eCall, and to define the roles for both the public and private stakeholders.
These include the Member States, the Commission, telecom operators, PSAP operators,
vehicle manufacturers, equipment suppliers, motorway operators, automobile clubs, insurance
industry and service providers.
The Driving Group produced a Memorandum of Understanding 13 on implementing eCall.
The aim of the MoU is to ensure that eCall will work in any EU Member State. The MoU
binds the stakeholders in implementing the eCall together on the basis of common approved
architecture and interface specifications, including the Minimum Set of Data (MSD). The
MoU was signed by the European Commission, ACEA on behalf of the automotive industry
and the multi-sector partnership ERTICO on behalf of its partners in August 2004. The MoU
has now over 50 signatures.
The eSafety partners have agreed on a Road Map for eCall roll-out, presented in Figure
2. The main milestones are the following:
a) Agreeing on eCall roll-out plan, business model and standards by the end of 2005
b) Full specification of the in-vehicle eCall system and start of development by mid-2006
c) Full-scale field tests with early adopters in 2007
d) Introduction of eCall as standard equipment in all vehicles entering the market after
September 2009
To enable eCall technology to work, the emergency services in the EU Member States will
need to equip or upgrade their PSAPs to process eCall location reports at the latest by the end
of 2007.
12
Directive 2002/58/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 12 July 2002 concerning the
processing of personal data and the protection of privacy in the electronic communications sector
13
Memorandum of Understanding for Realisation of Interoperable In-Vehicle eCall, see
www.eScope.info
EN 6 EN

Figure 2: Road Map for eCall roll-out
3. ACTIONS FOR BRINGING ECALL TO THE CITIZENS BY 2009
With the commitment of the industry and public sector stakeholders, eCall can become a
reality. Industry is ready to equip all new vehicles with the eCall devices starting from
models entering the market after September 2009. However, without the full commitment of
the Member States there will be no investment from the automotive industry. All stakeholders
must act together to promote eCall at national and international fora, most notably the
eSafety Forum.
3.1 Actions for the Member States
1. The Member States should sign the eCall MoU
The Member States should immediately sign the eCall Memorandum of Understanding at an
appropriate level, and commit to the implementation of the pan-European eCall. The MoU
has now over 50 stakeholders’ signatures, but only two Member States (Finland and
Sweden) and Switzerland have signed. Lack of signatures, especially from the Member
States threatens to delay the eCall implementation and weakens the commitment of
industry.
2. The Member States should promote 112 and E112
The single European emergency number 112 is in use in 24 Member States 14 . It is, however,
used in parallel with national numbers, and only in Denmark and Netherlands is it the
single number. The majority of Member States have also been slow in encouraging their
public wireless network operators to provide location information (E112). As eCall is based
on 112 and E112, the Member States should promote the use of 112 and take steps for
accelerating the introduction of location information in their public wireless networks.
14 Infringement procedure against Poland was started in March 2005.
EN 7 EN

3. The Member States should upgrade their PSAPs to handle location-enhanced E112
calls and eCalls
The Member States should undertake to ensure, at the latest by the end of 2007, that
adequate schemes are put in place to upgrade the infrastructure in the Public Service
Answering Points (PSAPs) for the processing of location and other information of eCalls
originating from vehicles. In order to comply also with the E112 regulation, the Member
States should upgrade their PSAPs first to handle the location information of E112 calls, and
then do the incremental upgrade that enables the handling of eCalls, following standards
being developed by ETSI.
4. The Member States should provide adequate location-enhanced emergency services
and language support.
The Member States should ensure that their PSAPs are capable of adequately handling the
eCalls originating from vehicles, that the personnel are trained to do so, and that language
support is provided. They should also upgrade their whole emergency service chain (PSAPs,
dispatching, emergency vehicles, and hospital emergency rooms) with adequate ICT based
tools that will ensure fast and reliable response to vehicle accidents and take full benefit of
the information provided by the in-vehicle eCalls. A service concept for the full emergency
chain is being developed by the project RESCUE 15 .
3.2 Promoting eCall at National and International Fora
The Commission strongly recommends that the Member States set up national platforms for
promoting eCall. They should have participation from relevant ministries (transport,
telecommunications and interior) including the authorities responsible for emergency
services, as well as private industry and service providers. The Commission will launch a
promotion campaign of 112, E112 and eCall, and will organise Conferences for best practice
exchanges, in support of the national activities.
The Commission will propose to the Civil Protection Committee the creation of a sub-group
dealing with Emergency Communications, 112, E112 and eCall. The Member States should
support the work of this sub-group to solve the remaining issues related to the investments in
the interoperable pan-European E112 and eCall service in their respective countries.
All eSafety stakeholders should support the work of the eCall Driving Group and use this
forum for solving the remaining issues related to the roll-out of pan-European eCall by 2009.
This includes agreeing on the specifications of the in-vehicle system, agreeing on the eCall
business model, and organising the field tests.
The eSafety Forum is an important European platform to continue the dialogue on
accelerating the development, deployment and use of intelligent vehicle safety systems in
Europe. The Commission will organise regular High-Level and Plenary meetings of the
Forum. These will allow all stakeholders to monitor the progress of the eCall roll-out and to
take further actions if needed.
15
RESCUE is a part of the Integrated Project GST, see http://www.gstforum.org/en/7_subprojects/rescue_rsq/
EN 8 EN

eCall has to operate in all GSM and 3G networks in Europe. Standardisation of the eCall
transaction and data transfer protocols between the in-vehicle eCall terminal and the PSAPs is
therefore crucial. The Commission has asked ETSI to accelerate the standardisation of eCall
and to work with CEN as necessary. ETSI should produce draft standards for eCall by the
end of 2005.
4. BUILDING A SAFER FUTURE WITH ESAFETY AND OTHER COMMISSION ACTIONS
The eSafety initiative is part of the Commission comprehensive strategy for improving road
safety and transport efficiency in Europe, at the same time maintaining and improving the
competitiveness of the industries involved, most notably the automotive sector.
In Road Safety, the eSafety initiative is recognized world-wide. The eCall is a priority item
under eSafety, which has reached maturity. Under the eSafety Forum, eleven Working
Groups have been established and results, not only eCall, are emerging. The Commission is
also active on the regulatory side and in promoting road safety in joint initiatives.
As a result of the eSafety initiative and Community supported research programmes, Active
Safety and Advanced Driver Assistance Systems like ESP, ACC, lane departure warning and
collision mitigation are ready for a wider market introduction. The Commission will
strengthen the efforts to promote the voluntary implementation of these systems.
4.1 eSafety
Human Machine Interaction (HMI) is a priority topic in eSafety. The HMI Working Group
was established in 2003 to analyse the situation in the implementation of the so called
European Statement of Principles 16 for Human-Machine Interaction. This analysis was
done on the basis of the Member State’s reports. The group focused on problem areas in HMI,
such as the introduction of nomadic devices and the rapidly increasing complexity of new invehicle
systems. The Working Group published its Final Report in February 2005. On the
basis of this report the Commission intends to provide a Recommendation on HMI with a
renewed European Statement of Principles (ESoP).
The Real-Time Traffic and Travel Information (RTTI) is another priority. The RTTI
Working Group of the eSafety Forum aims to identify and remove the obstacles for Europewide
implementation of RTTI services, such as limited availability of traffic information
content, difficulties in defining the roles of the public and private sectors, availability of
broadcast capacity and difficulties with business models. The work takes into account the
Commission Recommendation on TTI services in Europe 17 . The target set by the RTTI
Working Group is that all countries within the European Union agree to extend the
installation of the chain of information needed for Real-Time Traffic Information Services in
order to cover 80% of the EU population with standardized services by 2010. The group will
publish its Final Report by the end of 2005.
16 Commission Recommendation of 21 December 1999 on safe and efficient in-vehicle information and
communication systems: A European statement of principles on human machine interface OJ L 19 of
25.1.2000
17 Commission Recommendation, OJ L 199, 24.7.2001, p. 20
EN 9 EN

The eSafety Forum User Outreach Working Group is investigating actions for
communicating to users the benefits of eSafety systems in order to increase user awareness.
This is essential to increase user demand for such systems and to improve the business case.
The group has analyzed best practices and “lessons learned” from earlier campaigns and user
outreach actions, as well as the penetration patterns of some earlier systems. The group
proposes to create a “communications platform” of all stakeholders and the creation of an
eSafety label. This proposal was included in its first interim report in May 2005 and is
currently under discussion in the other eSafety groups, including the group on Implementation
Road Maps.
4.2 Other Commission actions
The Commission established a High-Level Group in 2005 for a competitive EU Car
Industry. This group, called CARS 21, brings together the European Commission, leaders of
the automotive industry, the European Parliament, Trade Unions NGOs and Users, and will
develop an integrated strategy for sustainable development of the industry, define the best
possible regulatory approaches and set the necessary conditions for innovation.
The Commission will also produce in 2005 a Mid-Term Review of the Road Safety Action
Programme. This review will evaluate the overall progress towards the objective to reduce
the number of fatalities on European roads by half by 2010.
5. CONCLUSIONS
Technologies and systems that can save lives and reduce the severity of injuries caused by
road accidents exist today. The eSafety initiative is bringing such systems that are based on
the use of advanced ICTs within the reach of road users. eCall is the first: when fully
deployed, it could save up to 2500 lives per year and will have substantial socio-economic
benefits. It directly improves the quality of life of all our 454 million citizens.
Our challenge is to ensure the large-scale deployment of eCall in Europe. The technology is
ready and the industry is committed. Member States must now commit to it and to invest in
the necessary infrastructure in their emergency services.
Upgrading of the emergency services comes with a cost, but the estimated benefit-cost ratio is
good. Once the investment is done, there will be also additional benefits. The Commission
urges the Member States to act immediately on the recommendations of this Communication.
The Commission will follow the progress closely and in case the eCall roll-out fails to
progress according to the presented Road Map it will consider further measures.
EN 10 EN

Recommendations for the introduction of
the pan-European eCall
Appendix 7
Draft Report on Road safety: Bringing
eCall to Citizens by the European
Parliament, Committee on Transport
and Tourism, Provisional
2005/2211(INI)
Rapporteur: Gary Titley

4.1.2006
EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT
2004
« «««
«
« «
« «
« « «
Committee on Transport and Tourism
DRAFT REPORT
on Road safety: bringing eCall to citizens
(2005/2211(INI))
Committee on Transport and Tourism
Rapporteur: Gary Titley
2009
PROVISIONAL
2005/2211(INI)
PR\594058EN.doc PE 367.657v01-00
EN EN

EN
PR_INI
CONTENTS
Page
MOTION FOR A EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT RESOLUTION...........................................3
EXPLANATORY STATEMENT...........................................................................................6
PE 367.657v01-00 2/10 PR\594058EN.doc

MOTION FOR A EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT RESOLUTION
on road Safety: Bringing eCall to citizens
(2005/2211(INI))
The European Parliament,
– having regard to the Commission White Paper 'European transport policy for 2010: time
to decide' (COM(2001)0370), and its resolution of 12 February 2003 thereon 1 ,
– having regard to the Commission Communication 'Information and Communications
Technologies for Safe and Intelligent Vehicles' (COM(2003)0542),
– having regard to the Commission Communication 'Halving the number of road accident
victims in the European Union by 2010: A shared responsibility' (COM(2003)0311) and,
more recently, its publication 'Saving 20 000 lives on our roads' of October 2004,
– having regard to Commission Recommendation 2004/345/EC of 6 April 2004 on
enforcement in the field of road safety 2 ,
– having regard to the Verona Declaration on Road Safety of 5 December 2003 as well as
the conclusions of the Second Verona meeting of EU transport ministers of 2004 and the
subsequent commitment given by those ministers to regard road safety as a priority,
– having regard to the Commission Communication 'i2010 – A European Information
Society for growth and employment' (COM(2005)0229),
– having regard to the Commission's 2nd eSafety Communication 'Bringing eCall to
citizens' (COM(2005)0431),
– having regard to Rule 45 of its Rules of Procedure,
– having regard to the report of the Committee on Transport and Tourism (A6-0000/2006),
A. Whereas 43,000 people died in road accidents in the EU of 25 Member States in 2004,
and eCall could save up to 2,500 lives a year 3 ,
B. Whereas the total associated annual cost savings are estimated at EUR26 billion (EUR22
billion in annual accident cost savings and EUR4 billion in annual congestion cost
savings) 4 ,
C. Whereas the pan-European in-vehicle emergency call service/function, "eCall", is to be
welcomed as the first building block of the intelligent car 5 initiative,
1 OJ C 43 E, 19.2.2004, p. 250.
2 OJ L 111, 17.4.2004, p. 75.
3 http://europa.eu.int/information_society/activities/esafety/call_4/index_en.htm.
4 http://europa.eu.int/information_society/activities/esafety/call_4/index_en.htm
5 Commission Communication 'i2010 - A European Information Society for growth and employment'.
PR\594058EN.doc 3/10 PE 367.657v01-00
EN

EN
D. Whereas the large-scale roll-out of eCall by 2009 is a priority of the eSafety initiative,
E. Whereas considerable progress has been make in the field of eSafety technologies,
systems and services,
1. Welcomes the fact that, at the 2nd eSafety High Level Meeting with Members States 1 ,
four Member States signed the eCall Memorandum of Understanding (MoU), namely,
Greece, Italy, Lithuania and Slovenia, joining Finland and Sweden which signed the
MoU earlier;
2. Is encouraged by the commitment of other Member States which have already initiated
the process for signing the eCall MoU (Czech Republic, Cyprus, Denmark, The
Netherlands and Germany);
3. Stresses the importance of all Member States signing the eCall MoU as soon as possible,
in order to demonstrate a clear commitment to the implementation of eCall to other
stakeholders, if eCall is to be fully rolled out in 2009;
4. Regards the clear commitment given by the automotive industry to eCall as a positive
move;
5. Notes that the eCall system is based on the use of 112 and E112 (location information
requirements in public wireless networks for emergency calls);
6. Recalls that a majority of Member States have been slow in encouraging the use of the
single European emergency number 112;
7. Urges the Member States to promote the use of 112 and E112 and to take steps to provide
the appropriate infrastructure in the Public Service Answering Points (PSAPs) such as
language training, availability, location identification and call handling to comply with
the E112 regulation, which will then allow for incremental upgrading to handle eCalls;
8. Notes the disparity between the Commission's and the Industry's estimates of the cost of a
built-in-vehicle eCall system;
9. Invites the Commission and Industry to pursue a deeper cost-efficiency analysis for every
action to be undertaken to implement eCall;
10. Is aware that the introduction of many new technologies cannot be instantaneous and
therefore encourages the Commission and Industry to look into the large-scale roll-out of
eCall through a combination of built-in vehicle systems and alternative systems such as
the use of drivers' cellular phones and Bluetooth technology as well as built-in cellular
telephones;
11. Having regard to the potential cost of the eCall system and being aware of the fact that
many new technologies may prove costly and that new car buyers (particularly at the
budget end of the car market) are not always willing or able to pay the full cost, even
1 eSafety Forum, 2nd High Level Meeting with Member States, Brussels 18 October 2005.
PE 367.657v01-00 4/10 PR\594058EN.doc

though the benefits of the system may outweigh the added cost to the vehicle; calls on all
stakeholders to work together to define incentives to speed up the introduction of the
eCall system;
12. Is particularly concerned that the cost of eCall may be prohibitively expensive for those
with the greatest need, for example those in rural or isolated areas;
13. Welcomes future initiatives and Communications of the European Commission in the
field of eSafety;
14. Instructs its President to forward this resolution to the Council, the Commission and the
Member States.
PR\594058EN.doc 5/10 PE 367.657v01-00
EN

EN
1. Presentation of eCall
EXPLANATORY STATEMENT
The eCall scheme is part of the eSafety initiative 1 . It consists of the establishment of a
harmonised pan-European in-vehicle emergency call. In case of an accident, the eCall device
in the vehicle will transmit an emergency call with data that goes directly to the nearest
emergency call centre. eCall can be triggered manually, but in case of a serious accident the
car will send the call automatically. The life-saving feature of eCall is the accurate
information it provides on the location of the accident site: the nearest emergency centre (the
Public Safety Answering Point (PSAP)) is notified immediately, and knows exactly where to
go. This results in a drastic reduction in the rescue time 2 .
Some private emergency call systems have been developed in the past, and some are in the
market now for some car trades, but its penetration is limited (normally reserved to high-endvehicles)
and failed to ensure the appropriate service when the vehicles cross the borders.
eCall aims to be introduced in all vehicles in Europe, for all trades and types, and to work
anywhere the vehicle will be in Europe, thus giving service to the more than 100 million
persons that travel abroad annually by car.
ECall will be built on the single European emergency number, 112, which was recently
generalised in the whole EU 3 . This will ensure interoperability across Europe. In order to
improve localisation of emergency calls, the 112 has a complement, the E112, which should
allow immediate localisation of the emergency call 4 .
By accelerating the response time to the accident by about 50%, eCall will reduce the severity
of the road accidents, thus contributing to the objective of reducing road deaths in the EU 5 .
This improvement would meet the objective of reducing road casualties and fatalities that has
been fixed in the Commission's European Road safety Action Programme 6 and agreed by the
Council.
1
Communication on Information and Communications Technologies for Safe and Intelligent Vehicles,
COM(2003)0542, 15.9.2003.
2
An immediate localisation of the accident will allow to treat more injuries in the crucial "Golden hour" — an
hour of opportunity in which the lives of critically injured people can be saved, or the severity of their injuries
reduced, if they are treated by trauma specialists. The Golden hour principle is based on medical findings
demonstrating that the death rate of people with heart or respiratory failure or massive bleeding approaches 100
% one hour after the accident.
3
The 112 was introduced by Council Decision of 29 July 1991on the introduction of a single European
emergency call number (91/396/EEC), Published in the Official Journal L 217, 6.8.1991, p. 31.
4
Article 26 of the Universal Service Directive adopted in 2002 (Directive 2002/22/EC of 7 March 2002 on
universal service and users' rights relating to electronic communications networks and services published in OJ L
108, 24.4.2002) stipulates the obligation that the public network operators make the caller location of all calls
available to the emergency services to the extent technically feasible. Commission Recommendation of 25 July
2003 on the processing of caller location information in electronic communication networks for the purpose of
location-enhanced emergency call services (E112)
5
According to E-Merge and the eSafety Driving Group, 5 % to 15 % of road fatalities can be reduced to severe
injuries and 10 % to 15 % of severe injuries can be reduced to slight injuries (E-Merge 2004: 49, eSafety group).
6
European Road Safety Action Programme: Halving the number of road accident victims in the European Union
by 2010: A shared responsibility, COM 2003(311) final 2.6.2003. The aim of the Programme is to reduce by
2010 the total number of road deaths from 43 000 to 25 000.
PE 367.657v01-00 6/10 PR\594058EN.doc

The shorter rescue time - faster arrival of rescue teams, police and towing firms- enables the
accident scene to be cleared more quickly, eCall will thus reduce the congestion time and
contribute to the efficiency of road transportation in Europe with a reduction of external costs,
which could amount to € 4 billion in Europe 1 . The overall savings of eCall related to accident
reduction, including social and health costs and lost “public” income calculated for the
European Community could amount to nearly €21 billion each year. Taking into account the
necessary annual investments on the in-vehicle systems, to upgrade the PSAPs and to train the
emergency services staff (estimated € 4.5 billion); a substantial cost-benefit ratio for eCall can
be expected. Even with a lower estimated success rate and higher costs the benefit-cost ratio
stays positive 2 .
For the global organisation of eCall emergency service, Member States will have the choice
between direct management or by delegation of management of PSAP public service.
2. Action plan for the implementation of the scheme
An eCall Driving Group was established to produce framework architecture and a business
model for eCall, and to define the roles for both the public and private stakeholders.
It includes representatives from the Member States, the Commission, telecom operators,
PSAP operators, vehicle manufacturers, equipment suppliers, motorway operators,
automobile clubs, insurance industry and service providers.
The eCall Driving Group has produced a Memorandum of Understanding (MoU) on
implementing eCall.
The aim of the MoU is to ensure that eCall will work in any EU Member State. The MoU is a
commitment of the stakeholders to implement the eCall together 3 on the basis of common
approved architecture and interface specifications, including the Minimum Set of Data
(MSD). The MoU was signed in August 2004 by the European Commission, ACEA on behalf
of the automotive industry and the multi-sector partnership ERTICO on behalf of its partners.
The MoU has now over 50 signatures among which 6 are from Member States. Other 5
Member States have initiated the procedure for its signature. Switzerland has also signed the
MoU.
The eSafety partners have agreed on a Road Map for eCall roll-out, the main milestones are
the following:
a) By the end of 2005, agreeing on eCall roll-out plan, business model and standards
b) By mid-2006, full specification of the in-vehicle eCall system and start of development
c) In 2007, full-scale field tests with early adopters
d) After September 2009, introduction of eCall as standard equipment in all vehicles
entering the market.
3. Was has been done already?
1 The evaluation of the reduction in congestion time as been estimated at 10% in the low-impact case and 20%
reduction in the high-impact case (see Study on the potential socio-economic impact of the introduction of
Intelligent Safety Systems in Road Vehicles (SEiSS) final report 2005, point 5).
2 See SEiSS study and E-Merge, 2004.
3 It should however be noted that the MoU does not create any legal obligation between Parties.
PR\594058EN.doc 7/10 PE 367.657v01-00
EN

EN
Ø The eCall Driving Group, with the participation of all stakeholders, has advanced in
the specification of the performance criteria for the eCall service.
Ø The Driving Group has produced the first drafts specifications for the different
domains of the system (in-vehicle system, interface to mobile networks operators,
mobile network, interface to PSAPs, PSAPs)
Ø The Commission requested ETSI to produce the standard protocols to transmit the
minimum set of data associated to an eCall from the in-vehicle system to the PSAPs.
ETSI MSG is carrying out this task, and requested 3GPP to investigate the technical
requirements for the transmission of the data from the in-vehicle systems to the PSAPs
through mobile telephone networks (GSM, GPRS, UMTS). Standards are expected by
end of March 2006
Ø ETSI and CEN have opened a working item to standardise the Minimum Set of Data
architecture.
Ø Some Member States (Finland, the Netherlands) are upgrading their emergency
services including eCall functionality. Finland has implemented an eCall testbed.
Implementation of emergency n° 112 in the EU Member States
Situation in Member States
Availability of 112 Available in all Member States
Call answering and handling (PSAP5) Operational in 15 Member States
10 other Member States have deficiencies in
language and/or organisation 16
Caller location (E112) 10 Member States have completed the process
Information-Promotion of 112 10 Member States have taken sufficient action
16 Deficiencies in language is not a major problem for eCall as the relevant information is transmitted
automatically
PE 367.657v01-00 8/10 PR\594058EN.doc

Implementation of eCall in the EU Member States
Member State eCall MoU signature Implementation status
Belgium Discussion between Ministries Upgrading and reorganisation of
emergency centres
Czech Republic Procedure started E112 operational. Candidate for pilot
Denmark Procedure started
Germany Support to eCall. Lander delegated
into Federal Ministry
Signature conditioned to solve data
privacy issue
Estonia
Greece Signed
Spain Regional competence E112 operational. Position paper
critical with eCall. Meeting to follow
France Discussion between Ministries
Ireland
Italy Signed Upgrading emergency services.
Candidate for pilot
Cyprus Signed
Latvia
Lithuania Signed Upgrading emergency centres
Luxembourg
Hungary Procedure started Upgrading emergency centres. Expert
meeting Spring 06. Candidate for
pilot
Malta Discussion between Ministries Starting socio-economic study
The Netherlands Procedure started Upgrading PSAPs. Implementation on
2006. Candidate for pilot
Austria
Poland
Portugal Discussion between Ministries
Slovenia Signed
Slovakia
Finland Signed Testbed operational. Candidate for
pilot
Sweden Signed Candidate for pilot
United Kingdom Subject to financial perspectives E112 operational. Research on RSQ
on UK PSAPs
4. What still needs to be done in order to be ready for 2010?
Ø Achievement of the operational implementation of 112 and E112 as the one and only
emergency number with localisation in Europe.
In order to have the background service ready for immediate implementation of eCall,
PR\594058EN.doc 9/10 PE 367.657v01-00
EN

EN
Member States should also insure the viability of their PSAPs -, through equipment
and upgrading - so as to operate location-enhanced E112 calls and eCalls. Member
States should also ensure that the personnel of PSAPs are capable of adequately
handling the eCalls originating from vehicles and that language support is provided.
They should also upgrade their whole rescue chain (PSAPs, dispatching, emergency
vehicles, and hospital emergency rooms).
Ø Accelerate the signature of the MoU by Member States in order to give the necessary
signal to the industry 1 and citizens. As the industry will be willing to finalise
investments and equipment if it is sure that Member states give sufficient guarantee on
their share of burden to undertake, the main issue lies on Member States' willingness
and readiness for providing the background emergency services for 2009-2010
(mainly setting up suitable emergency stations and rescue response capacity).
Ø Make sure that stable and viable standards for eCall technology are finalised by ETSI
(European Telecommunications Standards Institute) for mid-2006 at the latest.
Ø Complete the work of the eCall Driving Group defining the specifications of the
systems and agreeing on a positive business model.
Ø Launch extensive Field Operational Test with early adopters.
Conclusion of the rapporteur
As it should save around 2,500 lives per annum in the EU and €26 billion in accident and
congestion costs, your rapporteur recommends that this initiative should be encouraged and
supported by the European Parliament.
The eCall system should be implemented by 2009 and should not be subject to any
unnecessary delay. It is important to note, however, that the automotive or
telecommunications industry should not bear any significant costs without the guarantee that
public expenditures and actions are also taken at a Member State level along the time line
agreed upon in the action plan and the Memorandum of Understanding. This is particularly
important with regard to the objective of having operational PSAPs and a viable chain of
emergency services based on E112 localisation data by the end of 2007.
If there is a lack of willingness from stakeholders to act, public and private incentive solutions
should be examined by Commission.
Your rapporteur considers that a pan-European in-vehicle emergency call system will add
value over and above what national means could provide alone.
1 Six Member States have already signed the Memorandum of Understanding (MoU) on the phasing-in of the
initiative, five other should do so in a near future. For some MS the agreement will take the form of a support
letter instead of a proper signature (Germany and France).
PE 367.657v01-00 10/10 PR\594058EN.doc

Recommendations for the introduction of
the pan-European eCall
Appendix 8
The full PSAP requirements
clarification paper

Position Paper – PSAP expert working
group on PSAP eCall requirements.
March 2006.
Authors:
Jan Malenstein, KLPD.
Tjerk Terpstra, Dutch Ministry of interior.
Mikko Jaaskelainen, Finnish Ministry of Interior.
John Medland, BT – UK PSAP.
Andy Rooke, Sussex Police.

Table of content
CHAPTER 1 - INTRODUCTION 1
1.1 OBJECTIVES 1
1.2 STAKEHOLDERS CONCERNED 1
CHAPTER 2 - EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 2
CHAPTER 3 - TELECOMMUNICATION ISSUES. 3
3.1 NETWORK ARCHITECTURE. 3
3.2 TELECOMMUNICATION ASPECTS. 4
3.2.1 ORGANISATION OF PUBLIC SERVICE ANSWERING POINTS/ EMERGENCY SERVICE
CENTRES 10
3.3 CARRIER ASPECTS. 14
CHAPTER 4 - PERFORMANCE INDICATORS. 15
CHAPTER 5 OPEN ISSUES. 21
5.1 LOCATION ACCURACY. 21
5.1.1 LOCATION DATABASES. 21
5.1.2 LOCATION ACCURACY EU. 22
5.1.3 LOCATION ACCURACY US. (FCC RULES). 23
5.2. EU APPROACH. 23
5.3. NEED FOR 1 METER ACCURACY. 24
5.4. STATUS OF E-CALL AND MSD. 25
5.5. MINIMUM SET OF DATA 27
5.5.1. GST RESCUE MSD. 27
6. REFERENCES 33

Chapter 1 - Introduction
1.1 Objectives
Position Paper – Psap expert working group
Resulting from the e-call steering group, a small working party from the PSAP side was
organised to draft the requirements on e-call. These requirements more or less had been
drafted previously, but have to be consolidated to enable a swift take-up and implementation
of e-call.
This document will also address questions on performance in network and call handling of
emergency calls to provide sufficient insight for the industry.
In principle, this document will not add new items to the requirements as have been
documented before. Input is from previous projects and activities concerning e-112 and e-call
like CGALIES (Coordination Group on Access to location information for Emergency
Services), the E-merge project, which in detail documented PSAP requirements on e-call and
previous results from the e-call driving group.
1.2 Stakeholders concerned
Input for this document has been received from the leading PSAP in:
• The Netherlands.
• The United Kingdom.
• Finland.
• Spain.
This is considered to be sufficient as those are to be considered the core group of technology
leading PSAP’s in Europe. Spain, The United Kingdom and The Netherlands have been
partners in the Emerge project on e-call.
Finland, The Netherlands and the UK are rolling out e-call and expect to be operational by
mid 2006 on e-call and e-112..
It should be mentioned that the input provided has acquired consensus already; this consensus
will be maintained. This document is not meant to start discussions on requirements again but
will capture a snapshot of the current situation on PSAP requirements. This snapshot will
consolidate the PSAP requirements for the time needed to implement and operate eCall.
31/03/2006 1 Version 5.0

Chapter 2 - Executive summary
Position Paper – Psap expert working group
The core group of EU leading PSAP’s herewith document their position, outstanding issues
and requirements towards a swift implementation and take-up of e-call.
Resulting from previous meetings of the e-call steering group issues are described here on
• Network.
• Performance indicators.
• Location accuracy.
• Status of e-call and MSD from the PSAP perspective.
• A standardised interface between network and PSAP.
Key issue is the fact that the PSAP’s agree to consolidate the MSD as it has been described
and documented now.
This is deemed necessary to take up a swift implementation.
In addition to this, the PSAP’s strongly wish to discuss further development of necessary data
in the e-call steering group forum to be integrated in the MSD and FSD along a path of
further technological developments.
The other issues and requirements described in this document reflect results obtained from
previous efforts, both from e-call, Emerge and e-112.
Specifically concerning e-112, the CGALIES final report, submitted in 2002 to the European
Commission reflects the consensus of PSAP’s and telecom operators. This consensus was
needed to implement the location determination function on emergency calls by the telecom
operators as laid down in the Universal Directive from the European Commission from March
2002.
The CGALIES findings led to a COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION on the processing of
caller location information in electronic communication networks for the purpose of location-
enhanced emergency call services, outlining a best practice approach, allowing all parties
concerned to get a foot on the ladder..
This recommendation concerned also the implementation of e-call to which the member states
were invited too.
31/03/2006 2 Version 5.0

Position Paper – Psap expert working group
Chapter 3 - Telecommunication issues.
3.1 Network architecture.
Telephone
dials 1-1-2
Despatch of
a response
Cell
Tower
Concentrator
2000
Stage 2 PSAP
Concentrator
2000
Local Switch
or MSC
Trunks
Local
Switches
Trunks
Public
Network
Figure 1. Typical network architecture 112 1
Concentrator
2000
Stage 1 PSAP
The diagram shows typical switching elements. For a wire line/fixed phone network, there
are usually local “concentrators” which bring together about 2000 lines into a small switch
with limited capabilities/intelligence. The local switch is the first switch with appreciable
processing capability that is linked to the main switches (“trunks”) that form the core of
public networks.
For mobile calls, the cell tower/base station is shown linked to the Mobile Switching Centre
(MSC) which has similar capabilities to a fixed network’s local switch.
In Europe calls are typically routed to the Stage 1 PSAP by data set in the public network
switches.
At the Stage 1 PSAP, in addition to the functions indicated in the diagram, further call routing
can occur using a PSAP database. Calls are then routed back through the public network (red
lines) to the selected Stage 2 PSAP.
As an example of the precautions taken to ensure 112s reach their destination, the diagram
shows 3 trunk switches connected to the local switch of the Stage 1 PSAP.
Within CGALIES, a questionnaire 2 was issued and circulated through the European
Telecommunications Network Operators’ association (ETNO) in order to obtain a clear
1 CGALIES final report. February 2002
� initial call reception
� selection of appropriate
type of emergency service
� filtering of false calls
31/03/2006 3 Version 5.0

Position Paper – Psap expert working group
picture of the varying ways 112 services were provided throughout the EC. The results
obtained from 12 countries show that many differences exist in the way networks are
processing 112 calls (even for fixed networks) and that the way calls are handled in the
PSAPs may differ a lot depending on the country concerned.
Some countries use up to 7 separate codes for different emergency services.
3.2 Telecommunication aspects.
112 telecommunication and organisational aspects were addressed in a document of the
European Commission, DG Environment, Directorate B - Environmental quality of Natural
resources, ENV.B4 – Civil protection and Environmental accidents: State of implementation
of the single European emergency call number 112, 18 October 2001.
It was built upon:
– A survey conducted among Member States on the implementation of the single European
emergency call number «1-1-2». Conducted in 1998 this survey was published by the
European Commission on its Europa internet server (address:
http://europa.eu.int/comm/environment/civil/pdfdocs/112surv.pdf).
– The replies given to a questionnaire by the participants to the Workshop on the
Implementation of the 1-1-2 for the European Union, organised in May 2000 by the National
Service of Civil Protection of Luxembourg. Participants to this workshop were officially
appointed by Civil Protection Authorities of the Member States.
– The replies given to a questionnaire submitted in December 2000 to the Permanent network
of National Correspondents in the field of Civil Protection (PNNC). The objective of the
questionnaire was to establish the requirements of Civil Protection authorities regarding
location of callers in emergency situations.
– A Eurobarometer survey conducted by the Commission during spring 2000 on the
knowledge of the «1-1-2» all over Europe.
– Contributions and observations by Member States submitted in the context of the
Open Network Provision Committee (ONP-Committee) and the Permanent network of
National Correspondents in the field of Civil Protection (PNNC).
Basic issues are dealt with in this paper, see tables on the next pages.
2 Questionnaire on the Requirements of National Civil Protection Authorities Regarding the Location of Callers in Emergency
Situations (Enhanced 112), sent by The European Commission DG Environment, Directorate C, nucleair and civil protection on
21 December 2000.
31/03/2006 4 Version 5.0

The 1-1-2 is accessible from:
all fixed
telephones
all public
telephones
Position Paper – Psap expert working group
all mobile
telephones
private
telephone
exchanges
others
Austria Y Y Y Y no
Belgium Y Y Y Y
Denmark Y Y Y Y no
Finland Y Y Y Y no
France Y Y Y Y no
Germany Y Y Y Y private radio network,
call station
Greece Y Y Y Y no
Ireland Y Y Y Y
Italy Y Y Y Y satellite telephones
Luxembourg Y Y Y Y roadside
telephone
emergency
Netherlands Y Y Y Y no
Portugal Y Y Y Y roadside
telephone
emergency
Spain Y Y Y Y
Sweden Y Y Y Y no
United
Kingdom
Y Y Y Y no
Iceland Y Y Y ?
Liechtenstein Y Y Y Y no
Norway Y Y Y no
31/03/2006 5 Version 5.0

Implementation of the 1-1-2
is the only emergency call
number
Position Paper – Psap expert working group
coexists with other
emergency call numbers
Austria No (automatically Yes (122-Fire-fighters,133- No
transferred to Police call
centre)
Police,144-Ambulances)
Belgium No (automatically Yes (100-Fire-fighters,
transferred to call centre Ambulances, 101-Police)
of
Unique co-ordination
centre
Denmark
Fire-fighters and
Ambulances)
Yes (Police call centre) No No
Finland No (Fire-fighters and
Ambulances call centre)
Yes (10022 Police) No
France No (automatically Yes (18-Fire-fighters, 15- Yes - co-ordination
transferred to Fire-fighters Ambulances, 17-Police, with SAMU
115-
call centre) Social services)
Germany No (corresponds to the
number for Fire-fighters
and Ambulances)
Yes (110-Police) Yes
Greece No Yes (100-Police,166-
Ambulances,199-Firefighters)
Yes
Ireland No (automatically
transferred to the 999 call
centre)
Yes (999) Yes
Italy No (corresponds to the Yes (115-Fire-fighters,118- No
number for Police) Ambulances)
Luxembourg Yes Yes (113) Yes
Netherlands Yes No Yes
Portugal Yes Yes (117-Forest fires)
Spain No Yes (091-Police, 061-
Ambulances, 080-Firefighters)
Yes
Sweden Yes Yes (90000) Yes
United
Kingdom
No (automatically
transferred to the 999 call
centre)
Yes (999) Yes
Iceland Yes No
Liechtenstein Yes (Police call centre) No
Norway No (corresponds to the Yes (110-Police, 113number
for Police) Ambulance)
31/03/2006 6 Version 5.0

Austria Yes
Belgium Yes
Denmark Yes
Finland Yes
France Yes
Germany Yes
Greece Yes
Ireland Yes
Italy Yes
Luxembourg Yes
Netherlands Yes
Portugal Yes
Spain Yes
Sweden Yes
United
Kingdom
Yes
Iceland Yes
Liechtenstein Yes
Norway Yes
Are the calls to the 1-1-2 free of charge ?
who covers expenditure ?
Position Paper – Psap expert working group
Free for the caller, the part operator-112 covered by Ministry of the
Interior
Free for the caller, the part operator-112 covered by Ministry of the
Interior
31/03/2006 7 Version 5.0

Is there a call return mechanism
available?
Austria No
Belgium Yes
Denmark Yes
Finland No
France Yes
Germany No
Greece No
Ireland Yes
Italy Yes
Luxembourg Yes
Netherlands Yes
Portugal No
Spain Yes
Sweden Yes
United Kingdom Yes
Iceland
Liechtenstein Yes
Norway No
Position Paper – Psap expert working group
31/03/2006 8 Version 5.0

Disconnection of the 1-1-2 service (fixed lines)
Access to 1-1-2 after
disconnection for unpaid
invoice
Position Paper – Psap expert working group
Period during which users have service
access to the 1-1-2 after disconnection
Austria No
Belgium Yes 3 months
Denmark6 No
Finland Yes
France Yes 1 year under certain conditions
Germany Yes
Greece Yes
Ireland No
Italy Yes
Luxembourg Yes 3 weeks
Netherlands Yes
Portugal Yes Only when monthly subscription is paid
Spain No
Sweden No
United Kingdom Yes 7 days - depends on repayment arrangement
Iceland No
Liechtenstein Yes Period of subscription
Norway Yes 87 days
31/03/2006 9 Version 5.0

Access to the 1-1-2 from mobile telephones
when the caller does not have
any PIN number or SIM7 card
Austria Yes Yes
Belgium No No
Denmark Yes No
Finland Yes Yes
France Yes Yes
Germany Yes Yes
Greece Yes Yes
Ireland Yes Yes
Italy Yes Yes
Luxembourg Yes Yes
Netherlands Yes Yes
Portugal Yes Yes
Spain No Yes
United Kingdom No No
Sweden Yes Yes
Iceland Yes
Liechtenstein No No
Norway Yes Yes
Position Paper – Psap expert working group
when the caller calls from a sector for
which he has no subscription
3.2.1 Organisation of Public Service Answering Points/ Emergency
Service Centres
There are between 1 and 1060 Stage 1 PSAPs in each EC member country, with many more
Stage 2 PSAPs. There are usually separate PSAPs for Fire, Police, and Ambulance/Medical
Centres
The 112 calls are received by a mixture of either the Police or Fire or, Ambulance PSAPs, or
(in three countries) a PSAP run by a separate organisation. Most therefore separate 112
reception (Stage 1 PSAP) and despatch of a response (Stage 2 PSAP).
See table on the next page for an overview of organisational aspects of the EU PSAPs.
31/03/2006 10 Version 5.0

Services responsible for replying a call to the 1-1-2.
Position Paper – Psap expert working group
Austria
implementation
Parallel Call automatically transferred to Police call centre
Belgium Parallel Call automatically transferred to FF-Ambulances call centre
Denmark
Unique call
number
Unique call centre (Police)
Finland Parallel Fire-fighters and Ambulances call centre
France Parallel Call automatically transferred to Fire-fighters call centre or
ambulances
Germany Parallel Fire-fighters and Ambulances call centre
Greece Parallel Unique call centre (TO*)
Ireland Parallel
Call automatically transferred to unique 999 call centre
(TO)
Italy Parallel Police call centre
Luxembourg
Unique call
number
Unique call centre (Civil Protection)
Netherlands
Unique call
number
Unique call centre
Portugal
Unique call
Unique call centre (Police)
number
Spain Parallel Unique call centre (?)
Sweden Parallel Call automatically transferred to unique 90000 call centre
(TO)
United
Kingdom
Parallel
Iceland
Unique call
number
Unique call centre (?)
Liechtenstein
Unique call
number
Unique call centre (Police)
Norway Parallel Police call centre
* TO = Telecommunications Operator
Call automatically transferred to unique 999 call centre
(TO)
Calls are either extended from the Stage 1 PSAP to the Stage 2 PSAP with the caller on line
(with or without CLI transfer), or a separate call is made to transfer incident details between
the PSAPs. For example, the Police Centre (Stage 1) might answer the 112 and need to
transfer to the Ambulance Service (Stage 2) as the caller needs medical help.
In the following table the language aspect is shown.
31/03/2006 11 Version 5.0

Position Paper – Psap expert working group
Emergency calls are at least answered in one official language, mostly this will be English,
see table:
In how many languages is a call answered ?
in regional language
in the national official
language(s)
in other languages
Austria Yes (DE) EN
Belgium Yes (DE, FR, NL) Yes at a regional
Denmark
basis
Yes (DK) NO, SE, EN, DE
Finland
Yes
(SE
areas)
bilingual Yes (FI)
in
EN
France Yes EN, DE, ES (in border areas)
Germany Yes (DE)
Greece Yes (GR) EN, FR
Ireland Yes (EN)
Italy Yes (IT) EN
Luxembourg Yes (LU) FR, DE, EN
Netherlands Yes (NL) EN
Portugal Yes (PT) ES, EN, FR
Spain
Yes (ES)
EN, FR, DE in tourist
regions
Sweden
Yes (SE)
EN. In some areas FI, DE,
FR,
immigrant languages with a
delay
United
Kingdom
Yes (Welsh in Wales) Yes (EN)
Iceland
Yes (IC)
EN and Nordic languages
(third
party translation also
available)
Liechtenstein Yes (DE) EN
31/03/2006 12 Version 5.0

Position Paper – Psap expert working group
In a number of Member States, 112 provides access to other medical services as well, these
are listed in the next table:
Services available
DIS VET POI CG MOU FOR PHA INF Other
Austria Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Yes - social services
Belgium Y Y Y Y N Y Y Y
Denmark Y9 Y Y Y N Y N Y
Finland Y10 N N Y N Y N Y
France N N11 Y Y Y Y Y N
Germany Y N N Y Y Y N N
Greece N N N Y N Y N N
Ireland
Italy
Y N N Y Y N N N
Luxembourg Y Y Y N Y Y Y Yes - doctors on duty
Netherlands Y12 N N N N N N N
Portugal Y13 N Y Y N Y Y
Spain N N Y Y Y Y Y Y
Yes - Civil
Protection
Sweden Y Y Y Y Y Y N N
Yes - doctors,
nurses,
midwifes, dentists,
priest on duty, social
services, air
ambulance,
radioactive
emergencies, marine
environmental
emergencies
United
Kingdom
Y14 N N Y Y15 N N N Yes
Iceland Yes - rescue teams
Liechtenstein Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Yes
Norway Y16 N Y Y Y Y Y Y
DIS = special provisions for persons with disabilities,
VET = access to veterinary surgeons, animal ambulances,
POI = access to poison control centres, CG = coast guard,
MOU = help in mountain, FOR = forest fires,
INF = general information concerning emergency situations
PHA = pharmacies,
31/03/2006 13 Version 5.0

3.3 Carrier aspects.
Position Paper – Psap expert working group
A specific issue of emergency calls in a network is the roaming issue. Normally, all roaming
conditions will apply if one is abroad and dials 112 on the GSM, this principle is known as
roaming.
But in some member states, is has been arranged that there will be one telecom operator that
has to receive and relay all incoming emergency calls, this is not so much an issue of roaming
but merely of selecting a certain carrier.
This is best described by an example: in The Netherlands, KPN is assigned as the carrier of
all 112 messages. That will mean that all other operators have to forward their incoming 112
calls to the KPN network. Via the KPN network, the 112 messages are forwarded to the
PSAP.
The reason for this is
• Span of control. It is easier to upgrade the functionality of 112 if there is only one
telecom operator to do business with regarding to 112.
• Next to this, this is a situation that has emerged from the past, when there was only
one telecom operator.
• Partnership. KPN has a partnership on 112 with the Ministry of Interior of The
Netherlands, it is a form of public-private partnership in which KPN has committed
itself to assume part of the overall responsibility for 112 as well, as far as it will
concern the network of 112, not the PSAP’s and emergency service operation itself.
The latter item has proven to achieve the best possible Level of Service for 112
telecommunication in The Netherlands.
31/03/2006 14 Version 5.0

Chapter 4 - Performance indicators.
Position Paper – Psap expert working group
This addresses the time that is needed for the different steps in handling 112 calls.
There were four questions asked to the above-mentioned PSAP’s.
1. Is there a performance indicator for the time it may take for an emergency call to
reach the PSAP when initiated from the handheld GSM?
2. Is there a performance indicator for the time in which an emergency call has to be
relayed from the PSAP to the appropriate emergency service?
3. Is there a performance indicator for the time in which an emergency unit has to be
dispatcheda after the reception of the emergency call at the emergency service?
4. Do we, as PSAP’s, know how many calls are simply “lost” before they reach the
PSAP?
Question 1 was considered to be a typical network operator issue, PSAP’s do not know this,
nor has this been defined.
The UK PSAP, operated by BT, has a target of answering 95% of 112/999 calls within 5
seconds of the call reaching the PSAP switch (see figure 1).
The Finnish PSAP has no answer on this. The Dutch PSAP has not set a performance
indicator for this either, but when connected to the network, 112 calls have priority over all
other calls.
There will always be some network set-up time within GSM after the send button has been
pushed. No figures are known to the PSAP’s on this.
31/03/2006 15 Version 5.0

Qustions 1, 2 and 3 could be best captured in a matrix:
Q1.
Performance indicator for the time it
may take for an emergency call to reach
the PSAP when initiated from the
handheld GSM.
Netherlands. • 90% of incoming
calls have to be
answered within
10 seconds.
• Calls have to be
evaluated and
forwarded to 2 nd
stage PSAP’s
within:
� 20 seconds for
fixed network
calls.
� 30 seconds for
mobile calls.
• 2 nd stage PSAP’s
have to answer
90% of calls from
1 st stage PSAP’s
within 10
seconds.
UK • 95% of incoming
calls have to be
answered within
5 seconds;
average is about 1
second.
• PSAP to 2 Nd
Stage PSAP: 90%
of the calls have
to be forwarded
within 10
seconds.
typically, this is 7
seconds.
• Ambulance
Q2.
Position Paper – Psap expert working group
Performance
indicator for the time
in which an
emergency unit has to
be dispatched after te
reception of the
emergency call at the
emergency service.
• Dispatch
within 90
seconds after
call
reception.
• Dispatch
performance
time
dependent on
the urgency.
Q3
Performance indicator of
the time within which to
arrive at the scene (this
was included in anwer 2)
• Urban area: 10
minutes.
• Rural/suburban
area: 15 minutes..
In the UK, this is
risk/safety related:
• Area I, High risk:
target is: within
15 minutes in
80% of all cases.
For large urban
areas like London
this is 10
minutes.
• Area II, Lower
risk: target is:
within 1 hr in
90% of all cases.
31/03/2006 16 Version 5.0

services are
moving towards
the target of
anwering 95% of
incoming calls
within 5 seconds,
police to answer
90% within 10
seconds.
• This is targeted
but not achieved
yet.
Finland • Incoming call has
to be answered
within 10 secs
• Average is about
8 seconds.
• Risk evaluation
and dispatch to
emergency
service within 90
seconds.
Position Paper – Psap expert working group
• Dispatch
within 1
minute after
reception of
call at
emergency
room.
(This is a very
recent national
standard).
• Area III: Lowest
risk: to be
attended later.
• Area IV: can be
handled
otherwise, like by
phone etc.
• In Finland, three
areas have been
defined, not
geographically
but risk related:
1. Area I (high risk
like chemical
plants): within 6
minutes.
2. Area II (middle
risk): within 10
minutes.
3. Area III (low
risk): within 20
minutes.
These performance indicators can be positioned on a timebar, providing an EU average
overview on the performance of call and incident handling at the EU PSAPs and the
emergency services.
The time bar on the next page represents the existing situation, without the MSD.
Note that this includes the 2 nd dispatching which occurs in countries where there is no
immediate dispatch or where the 2 nd dispatch is dependent on an assessment made on the spot
by an authorised emergency officer.
It also includes the time of the occurrence of an accident. The reporting time is the time at
which an accident is reported but there is no indication of the time elapsed between the actual
occurrence of an accident and its reporting time.
31/03/2006 17 Version 5.0

Accident
occurance
time
before
detection
and
reporting.
Range:
Days –
hours -
minutes
Set
up
call,
5
sec
s
Position Paper – Psap expert working group
3,5 minutes window message setup, reception and evaluation at
PSAP, forwarding to emergency rooms and dispatching.
Tran
smis
sion
time
4
secs
.
Arriving
at
PSAP
Answer
ing 5 –
10 secs
Averag
= 7
secs.
Evaluation and
forwarding to 2nd
stage PSAPs/
control room.
10 -90 secs
2nd
stage
Psap/
control
room
answer
90% of
incomin
g calls
within
10 secs
Dispatch
time.
60 – 90
secs
Solution without MSD
31/03/2006 18 Version 5.0
Arriving at the
scene
6 – 15 minutes,
1st assesment
control
room
answer
90% of
incomin
g calls
within
10 secs
1st assesment on the spot
Dispatch
time.
60 – 90
secs
Arriving at the
scene
6 – 15 minutes,
1st assesment
2nd dispatching after assessment,
Time starts counting again.

Accident occurance
time before detection
and reporting.
Range:
Days – hours - minutes
Setup
call,
5
secs
Trans
missio
n time
4 secs.
Position Paper – Psap expert working group
Arriving at
PSAP
Answering
5 – 10
secs
Averag =
7 secs.
Evaluation
and
forwarding
to 2nd
stage
PSAPs/
control
room.
10 secs
2nd stage
Psap/control
room
answer
90% of
incoming
calls within
10 secs
Solution with proper MSD,
up to 17 minutes of saving time,
or even more if the elimination of
accident occurance time is
counted as well.
31/03/2006 19 Version 5.0
Dispatch time.
60 – 90 secs
Dispatch time.
60 – 90 secs
Arriving at the scene
6 – 15 minutes,
1st assesment
Simultaneous dispatching
Arriving at the scene
6 – 15 minutes,
1st assesment

Position Paper – Psap expert working group
The time bar on the previous page shows the potential of the MSD. Not only for dispatching
but also for the yellow box of Evaluation and forwarding to 2 nd stage PSAP/control room.
Here is a timeframe listed of 10 to 90 seconds. The target for eCall should be set on 10
seconds and is achievable because the major time consumption here is the determination of
the location by voice, which is often cumbersome. Note that the 2 nd dispatching now has been
moved in parallel to the 1 st dispatching, making it simultaneous dispatching. This has been
enabled by the MSD as this will offer the operator sufficient data to justify the decision for
simultaneous dispatching.
The accident reporting time can be brought back now to practical zero as well, because the
MSD is generated virtually real time (only some loss of setup time), meaning that there will
be no uncertainty on the occurrence time.
Occurrence time and reporting time are initiated almost at the same moment.
The importance of gaining time is reflected in the diagram below.
minutes
31/03/2006 20 Version 5.0

Chapter 5 Open issues.
5.1 Location accuracy.
CGALIES looked in detail to parameters on location accuracy:
5.1.1 Location databases.
Position Paper – Psap expert working group
Location databases for use on 112 calls would typically be those customer records maintained
by fixed network operators of the line renter and the installation address of the line, or for
mobile networks it would be the so-called Gateway Mobile Location Centres (GMLCs or
MLCs) which can dynamically establish a caller’s current location.
Access by PSAPs to name and address information for fixed calls and location information
for mobiles is permitted for all 112 calls by a secure, restricted method. Accuracy of the
information is critical and for fixed lines at least should be more than 99%. Accuracy for
mobile location is more complex.
112 databases and sources of location information need to be available 24 hours, every day
and kept accurate in line with common digital maps/databases in use in the geo-political area.
A map reference must be given in a format that when passed-on and used on another location
display system, it actually will give the right physical position in a street/rural area.
Handset location information and owning network needs to be provided for all mobile
numbers.
The number of 112 databases should be minimised. Each network will have its own database
but access to the information by PSAPs could be made simpler if for example fixed networks
can send their information to a common 112 database, as is done for Directory Services.
The transfer of all information into and out of the databases or Mobile Location Centres need
to be with agreed data formats and protocols. The need for some standardisation was
recognised.
Some countries, for example Norway, Sweden and the UK, already have such protocols and it
would be helpful for PSAP suppliers if the number of such protocols and formats was
minimised and was based on a well-known protocol such as TCP/IP.
Finally, it was noted that such databases could usefully include extra fields to cover
information on medical conditions or fire hazards.
31/03/2006 21 Version 5.0

5.1.2 Location accuracy EU.
Position Paper – Psap expert working group
The CGALIES EU questionnaire 3 , mentioned before, also addressed the need to identify
common parameters for location accuracy.
The requirements obtained through the questionnaire are summarised in the following table.
Caller can
provide general
information
Caller cannot
provide any
information
Indoor Urban Suburban Rural Highway
10 - 50 m
10 - 50 m
10 - 50 m
10 - 50 m
30 - 100 m
10 - 100 m
50 - 100 m
10 - 100 m
Figure 2. Location table from the CGALIES EU questionnaire.
The caller's position mentioned above must be available within 30 seconds of call initiation.
In addition to this accurate positioning information, emergency services indicate that it can be
useful for an emergency centre to receive as quickly as possible a first rough estimate of the
caller's location (and to receive later the accurate positioning information mentioned above).
According to the responses to the questionnaire, the required accuracy for this initial
positioning information is generally situated between 200 and 300 m (for all environments).
This initial position should be available approximately 7 seconds after the call is initiated.
Emergency services also indicate that the availability of location information could be used
not only to determine the caller's location but to recognise that several calls are for the same
incident too ("Call cluster"). The associated accuracy requirements are approximately 150 m
in urban environment and 500 m in suburban and rural environments.
In such a case, location information must be available before the call is handled, that is to say
a few seconds after the initiation of the call.
3 Questionnaire on the Requirements of National Civil Protection Authorities Regarding the Location of Callers in Emergency
Situations (Enhanced 112), sent by The European Commission DG Environment, Directorate C, nucleair and civil protection on
21 December 2000.
31/03/2006 22 Version 5.0
Crossroads
20 - 100 m
10 - 100 m

5.1.3 Location accuracy US. (FCC rules).
Position Paper – Psap expert working group
In the US, the need to enhance emergency call services, in particular for calls originating
from mobile phones, was recognised in the mid 1990’s under the threat of legal action.
The result was a mandate of the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) which was
adopted in 1996. The mandate requires operators to determine and forward the location
of callers in an emergency.
The implementation of the mandate by operators met severe difficulties. As a
consequence, the mandate needed to be revisited and was amended several times.
The present mandate foresees the introduction of a location capability in mobile
communications systems in two steps:
• Phase I: wireless carriers have to deliver the telephone number and the location of the
base station or cell site together with its radius of service in meters to the designated
Public Safety Answering Point (PSAP).
• Phase II: is depending on the technology used: the use of handset-based technology
requires 50 m accuracy for 67% of calls, and 150 m for 95% of calls; the use of
network-based technology requires 100 m accuracy for 67% of calls, and 300 m for
95% of calls.
Phase II should be implemented by October 2001. The process of implementing FCC
rules was considerably slowed down by wavering the requirements of the FCC.
5.2. EU approach.
CGALIES took duly note of the legislative approach in the USA and the problems this caused
on acceptation by the telecom operators. Therefore, in the European Union, the European
Commission decided to pursue a more consensus driven approach. This approach was
reflected in the Communication 4 on e-112 and was documented:
“For every emergency call made to the European emergency call number 112, public
telephone network operators should, initiated by the network, forward (push) to public safety
answering points the best information available as to the location of the caller, to the extent
technically feasible. For the intermediate period up to the conclusion of the review as
referred to in point 13 below, it is acceptable that operators make available location
information on request only (pull)”.
4 COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION of 25/07/2003 on the processing of caller location information in electronic
communication networks for the purpose of location-enhanced emergency call services
31/03/2006 23 Version 5.0

5.3. Need for 1 meter accuracy.
Position Paper – Psap expert working group
In CGALIES, the issue of location accuracy was debated very in-depth. Ultimately, the need
for the emergency services will be 1-meter accuracy, as expressed by the PSAP’s, but it was
considered and acknowledged, that this was unrealistic to achieve by either GSM
location capabilities and/or GPS location capabilities as these exist today. Nevertheless,
the stakeholders involved in CGALIES: telecom operators and PSAP’s, realised that there
will be some kind of a migration path towards more accurate location information in the near
future.
GPS performance has improved drastically over the past few years since the USA DOD
abandoned the SA principle (Selective Availability). Nowadays, the USA is executing an
update on GPS overall, leading to more accurate location data. In the EU, Galileo is expected
to become operational as off 2008, adding 30 satellites and in combination with GPS, more
accurate location data will become available, even under difficult circumstances like within
building, in an urban canyon and under a leaf canopy. Combined GSM/GPS/Galileo
functionality in handsets will be the next topic, creating hybrid solutions for location finding
and determination; the EMILY project is on this.
The need for 1-meter accuracy can be best depicted by examples:
• First of all, it will be needed for accurate route guidance to the scene of the incident
via the fastest possible route; the Golden Hour principle counts here!
• 1 meter is needed to distinguish exactly the lane where the incident occurred; again,
this is related to proper route guidance and fastest time of arrival.
• This applies also if there is a ditch or a canal, 1 meter will give the proper distinction
on what side of the ditch or canal the incident occurred.
• This applies to canyon and gorges in mountainous areas also.
• In rough and inaccessible terrain, it can be very difficult to locate an incident, even
within 10 or 50 meters.
• A car can simply vanish into the shrub, a few years ago there was an example on
London’s M25 orbital ring road. A car was detected only after 5 weeks!
• Another example is from the USA, a car remained undetected for a week; the driver
freed himself from the wreckage by cutting off his own thumb.
• A mountaineer in the US fell into a gorge and got trapped. He cut of his own arm
with a pocket-knife and was rescued eventually.
• A car can get submersed without leaving a trace; the water plants floating on the
surface can render a car totally invisible from the shore.
But all and all, there can be no reason why this should not be applied if it will become
possible in terms or technological feasibility and costs.
Another upcoming feature may be the connection between the PSAP and traffic control
centres. Ideas exist to decouple the location information and vehicle info without the VIN
number from the incoming eCall and send this directly to the appropriate traffic control centre
within the framework of incident management.
31/03/2006 24 Version 5.0

Position Paper – Psap expert working group
An accurate position will enable the traffic control centre to take immediately the required
measurements, for instance, crossing off the lane where the accident is located.
The core group of PSAP’s agree to consolidate on what is possible today but express their
need for more accurate positioning down to the best possible achievable eventually. This will
be pursued along a path of further technological developments in cooperation and discussion
with the industry.
During a demonstration of the SCORE (Service of Coordinated Operational Emergency &
Rescue, using EGNOS) project on March 3 at the Civil Protection Authority in Lissabon,
Portugal, it was demonstrated that an accuracy of 3 meters, both outdoors and indoors is
already possible, using adapted GSM phones. This demonstration from a Galileo Joint
Undertaking project marked the next step in emergency service operation location accuracy.
5.4. Status of e-call and MSD.
border
Call with FSD
MSD: Minimum set of data
FSD: Full set of data
To other Countries
Call Center
SP
Call 1-1-2 + MSD
Information
request
1-1-2
Mobil
PSAP
Call Center
SP
Information
request
Controle
room
Figure 3. e-call architecture consolidated.
Fire-fighter
Police
Ambulance
Figure 3 represents the e-call architecture as this has been accepted fully.
Emergency
services
31/03/2006 25 Version 5.0

Position Paper – Psap expert working group
The PSAP’s would like to stress that they stick to this architecture as has been defined
withing e-Merge and e-safety/e-call. An emergency call, either triggered by sensors or
manually, will initiate a 112 call directly to the appropriate PSAP, together with the MSD
data message.
Next, a call is made to the SP, together with the FSD.
Both MSD and FSD contain a unique identifier; this identifier will guarantee that either a
PSAP or an emergency service operator can contact the SP or, in case of a foreign car, the SP
in the country where the car is registered to mutually exchange information.
The unique identifier will also guarantee that the privacy of persons involved in the accident
is protected in the best possible manner.
Recently, rumours are circulating to abandon this unique identifier, for reasons unknown to
the author of this document.
Again, the EU PSAPs stress the importance of the unique identifier and maintain this as a 1 st
priority, non-negotiable PSAP requirement.
The EU PSAPs would like to state that they agree to consolidate the MSD as it has been
agreed and as it is right now; this for reasons to enable the swift take-up and implementation
of e-call.
The PSAP’s in The Netherlands and in Finland are well underway to implement full-
functional e-call in their systems. The rollout of e-call should not be hindered by new
discussion about the contents of either the MSD or the FSD.
31/03/2006 26 Version 5.0

5.5. Minimum Set of Data
Position Paper – Psap expert working group
This paragraph describes the MSD that must be sent from the vehicle in case of an emergency
call to the most appropriate PSAP. This data is to be sent from the vehicle via the Telecom
operator using different data transmission ways to the PSAP. The information elements in the
MSD have been selected on the basis of their relevance in an emergency rescue situation.
The following information elements are of interest in an emergency situation. These
information elements are specified in the component part of the eCallMsg Abstract Syntax
Notation according to the GST RESCUE protocol stack definition.
The field “parameter” of the component part of the eCallMsg defines the information
elements described in the table on the next pages.
A minimum set of data has already been defined some year ago in the Emerge project. This
was the first time ever that emergency stakeholders from the EU member states defined a
common minimum set to be sent to the PSAPs.
This first set was derived from the specified functional requirements of the PSAPs that had
been described within Emerge as well.
This first Minimum set of Data was not reflecting completely the requirements from the
PSAPs, it was a first effort to allow all parties involved to get a foot on the ladder and to test
it, taking into account technical and telecom feasibility and costs.
5.5.1. GST Rescue MSD.
The MSD as further developed now in GST RESCUE does not reflect the full list of
requirements of the PSAPs either.
The EU PSAPs have taken the position to consolidate the MSD as it has been defined within
GST RESCUE for the sake of a speedy implementation of eCall. However, they maintain
their full list of data requirements to be inserted in further development trajectories of the
MSD that certainly will occur.
At the moment, the content of the MSD has been defined as follows (according to the latest
information from Ertico):
31/03/2006 27 Version 5.0

Information Element Description
EntityType
CLI
GPS Position Latitude
GPS Position Longitude
Unit 5
Not Applicable
Position Paper – Psap expert working group
Description Type of the Entity : Car, Test_Car, EA, Test_EA...
Source ASN.1 type IA5string
Source ASN.1 range
or defined values
SIZE (1) ENUMERATED
car(0), public vehicle
truck(1), truck
publicTransport(2), Public transport
ev(3), Emergency vehicle
psap1(4), Public safety answering point
ea(5), Emergency service
pS(6), Private Service
car_test(7), simulated crash
ea_test(8), simulated Emergency service
..., extensible
Length upper bound 6 1Character
Unit Not Applicable
Description Phone Number without the beginning “+” character (E164 address)
Source ASN.1 type IA5string
Source ASN.1 range
or defined values
Length upper bound 16 Characters
Unit milliarcseconds
(SIZE (2..15)) (FROM ("0".."9"|".")
Description WGS84 7 - accuracy 0.03 meter
Source ASN.1 type INTEGER
Source ASN.1 range
or defined values
Length upper bound 4 Bytes
-324,000,000..324,000,000
Unit milliarcseconds
Description WGS84 - accuracy 0.03 meter
Source ASN.1 type INTEGER
Source ASN.1 range
or defined values
Length upper bound 4 Bytes
-648,000,000..648,000,000
5 As it is used by ASN.1
6 The actual length will be calculated dynamically by ASN.1
7 Encoding taken from GTP Specifications
31/03/2006 28 Version 5.0

Information Element Description
Direction of travel
(heading versus)
Triggers activated
VIN number
Vehicle Make
Vehicle Model
Unit degrees / 15
Position Paper – Psap expert working group
Description Average of latest 3 GPS positions, accuracy 15 degrees
Source ASN.1 type INTEGER
Source ASN.1 range
or defined values
0..360
Length upper bound 1 Byte
Unit Not Applicable
Description Number of triggers activated
Source ASN.1 type INTEGER
Source ASN.1 range
or defined values
0..31
Length upper bound 1 Byte
Unit Not Applicable
Description Vehicle Identification Number
Source ASN.1 type IA5string
Source ASN.1 range
or defined values
Length upper bound 20 Bytes
Unit Not Applicable
SIZE (20) (FROM ("0".."9"|"A".."Z"))
Description Vehicle Manufacturer
Source ASN.1 type IA5string
Source ASN.1 range
or defined values
Length upper bound 12 Bytes
Unit Not Applicable
(SIZE (12)) (FROM ("A".."Z"))
Description Vehicle Model Descriptor
Source ASN.1 type IA5string
Source ASN.1 range
or defined values
Length upper bound 12 Bytes
Vehicle Colour Unit Not Applicable
(SIZE (12)) (FROM ("A".."Z")) OPTIONAL
31/03/2006 29 Version 5.0

Information Element Description
Which triggers are
activated
Timestamp
Service Provider toll free
number (optional)
Service Provider IP
Address (optional)
User Country Code
Description Colour of the vehicle
Source ASN.1 type IA5string
Source ASN.1 range
or defined values
Length upper bound 12 Bytes
Unit Not Applicable
Position Paper – Psap expert working group
(SIZE (12)) (FROM ("A".."Z")) OPTIONAL
Description Which sensors have reached threshold value and activated its trigger
Source ASN.1 type SEQUENCE
Source ASN.1 range
or defined values
Length upper bound 18 Bytes
Unit Seconds
Description
SIZE (0..6) OF TriggerType
ENUMERATED{
fc1(0), -- Front crash sensor 1
fc2(1), -- Front crash sensor 2
rc(2), -- Rear crash sensor
sc(3), -- Side crash sensor
srs(4), -- Airbag sensor
ke(5), -- Kinetic energy absorbed by the impacted vehicle
... – extensible
Source ASN.1 type INTEGER
Source ASN.1 range
or defined values
Length upper bound 4 Bytes
Timestamp of incident event, UTC time. Seconds since 1970. (This
means that this data type is valid until approximately year 2100)
0.. 4294967295
Unit Not Applicable
Description
Source ASN.1 type IA5String
Source ASN.1 range
or defined values
Length upper bound 16 Bytes
Unit Not Applicable
Description
Source ASN.1 type SEQUENCE
Source ASN.1 range
or defined values
Length upper bound 12 Bytes
Unit Not Applicable
Phone Number of the Service Provider (if the driver is a subscriber)
without the beginning “+” character, for language assistance services
(SIZE(2..15)) (FROM ("0".."9")) OPTIONAL
Service Provider IP Address to allows the PSAP1 to request Additional
Data from the Service Provider itself
SIZE(4) OF INTEGER (0..999)) OPTIONAL
31/03/2006 30 Version 5.0

Information Element Description
(optional)
Position Paper – Psap expert working group
Description 2 letter country code of the vehicle base on ISO-3166
Source ASN.1 type IA5String
Source ASN.1 range
or defined values
Length upper bound 2 Bytes
(SIZE (2)) (“A”..”Z”) OPTIONAL
Table 1 – Minimum Set of Data – Information Elements Definition
Abbreviated trigger Full trigger name
FC1 Front crash sensor 1
FC2 Front crash sensor 2
RC Rear crash sensor
SC Side crash sensor
SRS Airbag sensor
KE Kinetic energy absorbed by the impacted vehicle
Table 2 – Different triggers Definition
31/03/2006 31 Version 5.0

The PSAPs and
emergency dispatch
rooms want to receive
the information
onscreen and translated
into comprehensible
data, basically as
depicted here.
The PSAPs do not need
nor want to receive raw
data that have to be run
through some kind of
application to present comprehensible information.
Position Paper – Psap expert working group
This also means that the information has to be in fixed and standardized formats e.g.:
• Speed in km/h or MpH.
• Deceleration and acceleration in g.
• Date in dd-mm-yyyy.
• Time in hh:mm:ss
• Tilting in degrees.
• Temperature in Celsius.
This information will be provided in essence by the in-car sensors. Sensors will provide raw
data that will have to be processed into fixed formats according to the function of the sensor.
This processing may be performed in the sensor itself, the sensor output will be in the desired
format.
The processing may be performed in some kind of other in-car module like the on–board
computer, an airbag module, an ADR or the eCall module itself.
More and more this information will available and can be integrated in the MSD to be sent to
the PSAPs to enhance emergency service operation and the Golden Hour principle.
31/03/2006 32 Version 5.0

6. References
Position Paper – Psap expert working group
1 Directive 2002/22/EC of the European parliament and of the council of 7 March
2202.
2 CGALIES final report, February 2002.
3 Questionnaire on the Requirements of National Civil Protection Authorities
Regarding the Location of Callers in Emergency Situations (Enhanced 112), sent
by The European Commission DG Environment, Directorate C, nucleair and civil
protection on 21 December 2000.
4 COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION of 25/07/2003 on the processing of
caller location information in electronic communication networks for the purpose
of location-enhanced emergency call services.
5 Minimum set of data –Message structure 140905 V1.0 GST-Rescue.
6 EUROPEAN COMMISSION, DIRECTORATE-GENERAL ENVIRONMENT,
Directorate B - Environmental quality of Natural resources, ENV.B4 – Civil
protection and Environmental accidents. State of implementation of the single
European emergency call number 112, 18 October 2001.
31/03/2006 33 Version 5.0

Recommendations for the introduction of
the pan-European eCall
Appendix 9
Clarification Paper EG1 - eCall
Performance Criteria

Clarification Paper
EG1- eCall Performance Criteria
Draft V14
11 April 2006
Authors
Yann Bouler (Renault) – YB
Emilio Davila-Gonzalez (EC) – EDG
Chris Frencken (Navteq) – CF
Alfred R. Krappel (Motorola) – AK
Rasmus Lindholm (eSafety Support) – RL
Jan Malenstein (KLPD) – JM
Lennart Strandberg (Autoliv) – LS

Table of contents
CHAPTER 1 - INTRODUCTION.................................................................................................... 1
1.1 OBJECTIVES .................................................................................................................................. 1
1.2 ECALL SYSTEM OVERVIEW ......................................................................................................... 1
1.3 DOMAINS ....................................................................................................................................... 1
1.4 IDENTIFIED STAKEHOLDERS ........................................................................................................ 3
CHAPTER 2 - ECALL PERFORMANCE CRITERIA................................................................. 4
2.1 END2END PERFORMANCE CRITERIA............................................................................................ 4
2.2 VEHICLE........................................................................................................................................ 6
2.3 IN-VEHICLE SYSTEM (IVS).......................................................................................................... 6
2.4 IVS2MNO ..................................................................................................................................... 7
2.5 MOBILE NETWORK OPERATOR................................................................................................... 7
2.6 MNO2PSAP.................................................................................................................................. 7
2.7 PUBLIC SERVICE ANSWERING POINT.......................................................................................... 8
CHAPTER 3 - CONCLUSION....................................................................................................... 10
CHAPTER 4 - REFERENCES....................................................................................................... 11

Chapter 1 - Introduction
1.1 Objectives
Clarification Paper – EG1 Performance Criteria
The objective of this clarification paper is to define the minimum performance criteria for the
automotive eCall in such a way that a minimum of 5% of road fatalities can be saved per year in EU-
25 and reduce in average the severity by 15% per year could be accomplished, while keeping the costs
for the different stakeholders across the eCall service chain to a minimum.
1.2 eCall System Overview
The in-vehicle eCall is an emergency call generated either manually by vehicle occupants or
automatically via activation of in-vehicle sensors. The eCall trigger is transmitted over the vehiclespecific
bus (CAN, MOST or other) to the in-vehicle system. The in-vehicle system aggregates the
MSD as specified and agreed by the eCall stakeholders (based on MoU). When activated, the invehicle
eCall system will establish a 112-voice connection directly with the relevant PSAP (Public
Service Answering Point), this being either a public or a private eCall centre operating under the
regulation and/or authorization of a public body. At the same time, a minimum set of data (MSD) will
be sent to the eCall operator receiving the voice call see Figure 1.
1.3 Domains
Figure 1: eCall System Overview
The Pan-European in-vehicle emergency call eCall involves a number of different stakeholders all
with separate responsibilities and tasks, which even overlap. In order to provide a clear understanding
of the different aspects of the eCall chain six different domains have been identified see Figure 2. A
more detailed description of the six domains and the link between them can be found below.
05/05/2006 1 Version 13

Clarification Paper – EG1 Performance Criteria
Figure 2: The 6 domains of the eCall service chain
Vehicle: The vehicle domain is detecting an accident, either manually (by the driver or passenger
pushing the eCall button) or automatically through the deployment of the eCall triggers, which is
typically based on more than one sensor input. The deployment information is then sent to the invehicle
system (IVS). The vehicle domain is also responsible for delivering all the required
information to the IVS that is part of the Minimum Set of Data (such as e.g. the VIN number).
IVS: The IVS consists of four parts (GNSS device, Network Access Device (NAD), Processor and
HMI) all with separate responsibilities. The IVS “bundles” all information related to the eCall, i.e.
triggering of eCall (automatic/manual), location, direction of travel etc. into the MSD. This block of
information is then sent out through the NAD together with the established voice connection to the
PSAP.
IVS2MNO: The IVS2MNO interface relates to the transfer of eCall voice and MSD from the NAD
within the IVS to the MNOs core network, which means that the focus here is only the transmission.
Issues like communication channel, bearer, transport protocol and specifications of the network will be
the focus. 1
1 GSME Position Paper on eCall, GSM Europe, 18 November 2005
05/05/2006 2 Version 13

Clarification Paper – EG1 Performance Criteria
MNO: The focus within this domain is mainly on how the transport of MSD and voice should be done
through the network using the GSM network available today. Issues like SIM/USIM in the NAD,
standards and network upgrades, integration efforts, possible network infrastructures re-dimension and
possible new network support are all issues related to the Mobile Network Operator. 2
MNO2PSAP: This domain is the interface between the MNO and PSAP. Due to the large potential
number of eCall systems across the EU, the large number of telecom operators and the structure of
PSAP it is important that the transmission of both voice and MSD is done in a standardised way. 2
PSAP: When both voice and MSD are delivered to the PSAP “door” the PSAP domain focuses on
getting both voice and MSD to the same PSAP operator. The operator will then handle the eCall in an
appropriate way that meets the operational procedures for PSAPs.
1.4 Identified stakeholders
The table below describes the different stakeholders involved in the 6 different domains.
Domain Responsible Stakeholder
Vehicle Vehicle Manufacturers
In-Vehicle System Vehicle Manufacturers
Mobile device manufactures
GNSS receiver manufactures
Vehicle Manufacturers
In-Vehicle System Suppliers
Airbag control-unit Manufacturers
PSAP
Vehicle Manufacturers
In-Vehicle System Suppliers
Mobile Device Manufacturers
Mobile Network Operators
PSAP
GNSS receiver manufactures
IVS 2 MNO Vehicle Manufacturers
In-Vehicle System Suppliers
Mobile Network Operators Mobile Network Operators
Vehicle Manufactures
Mobile Device Manufacturers
Mobile Network Operator Mobile Network Operator Mobile Network Operator
Member States
MNO 2 PSAP Mobile Network Operator PSAP
PSAP
Mobile network operators
Fixed Network Operators
PSAP equipment suppliers
PSAP PSAP PSAP equipment suppliers
PSAP operators
Member States
GIS suppliers
2 GSME Position Paper on eCall, GSM Europe, 18 November 2005
05/05/2006 3 Version 13

Clarification Paper – EG1 Performance Criteria
Chapter 2 - eCall Performance Criteria
The Performance criteria outlined in this chapter are linked to the different domains within the eCall
service chain. Before going into the details of the individual domain performance criteria, overall
end2end performance criteria are defined so that the target of reducing fatalities by 5% and server
injuries by 15% per year in EU-25 can be achieved.
2.1 End2end performance criteria
Availability [%]
The availability of the system, i.e. the number of eCalls that are successfully placed when needed
(automatic triggering) or wanted (manual triggering) can be derived from previous studies that shows
that up to 2500 people can be saved per year through the pan-European eCall service 3 Other studies
such as the recent study made in Finland showed that 5% of all fatalities could be reduced if all cars
had an eCall service 4 .
Taking into account that availability depends on a number of factors like network availability, crash
proofness of the system, accurate crash sensor deployment, etc. the overall availability targets has to
follow technical and economical improvements over time which will result in the following
performance criteria for the eCall service: 5
� By 2010 – 90% of all activated and sent eCalls should successfully 6 reach the PSAP
� By 2015 – 95% of all activated and sent eCalls should successfully* reach the PSAP
� By 2020 – 98% of all activated and sent eCalls should successfully* reach the PSAP
Precise location [m]
The location of a vehicle involved in an accident is an important factor for the PSAP operator when
dispatching the emergency service vehicles to the scene of the accident. The target for satellite
location data precision is as a minimum in all environments:
� ≤ 50 meters (in 50% of all cases) 7
� ≤ 150 meters (in 95% of all cases)
3
COM(2005) 431 final – 14.09.2005
4
Impacts of an automatic emergency call system on accident consequences. Ministry of Transport and
Communications, Finland. AINO publications 14/2005, ISBN 952-201-966-6.
5
Revision clause is added with the objective to evaluate the overall performance criteria in 2014 for 2015
6
Successful means that, at a minimum, the MSD has to be transmitted and the acknowledgement received
7 This is measured against the standard WGS84
05/05/2006 4 Version 13

Clarification Paper – EG1 Performance Criteria
Timing [s]
The figure below represents the overall performance criteria for the timing split in the different
domains related to the eCall service. As the figure shows T0 and T1 still needs to be defined but the
performance criteria for T0 and T1 in relation to time is that time from when the accident accurse to
the eCall has been initiated (T0+T1) must not exceed 20 seconds.
The overall performance criteria related to timing for the whole eCall service must not exceed
34 seconds.
05/05/2006 5 Version 13

2.2 Vehicle
Clarification Paper – EG1 Performance Criteria
eCall is building on the enhanced single pan-European emergency call E112, which is already a
European service promoted and regulated by the European Commission. This also means that the
E112 is the back-up solution if the IVS fails to make an eCall. The differences between E112 and
eCall is the MSD and the fact that eCall can be automatically triggered.
The vehicle manufacturers for each vehicle type must define trigger levels for automatic activation
individually. Standardized threshold levels cannot be defined due to the different mechanical
structures of road vehicles.
2.3 In-Vehicle System (IVS)
Location
Location data must be available when a crash occurs, i.e. it must not happen that the unit has to run
through a warm or even a cold start procedure – this is because a pearl chain has to be stored in the
eCall system to calculate the direction of travel (the heading information from GNSS is not adequate)
and acquire the fix after the crash typically takes too much time.
MSD bundling
The bundling of the MSD is done by the IVS.
HMI
The HMI of the IVS has to inform the driver, if the eCall system on board is not properly functioning.
Triggering / cancellation criteria
The Strategy for the automatic triggering of eCall must be set up so that it is as safe and robust as
possible in order to prevent false eCalls. Associating the automatic triggering with a reliable control
unit, which is fully tested could minimise the potential false automatic eCalls.
A strategy for the manual triggering must be developed for each vehicle specific human machine
interface so that eCall will not be triggered accidentally. Different scenarios examples have been
thought of such as; holding the eCall bottom down for three seconds to trigger the eCall or push it
twice within 5 seconds. Manual trigger strategy must be defined individually by the vehicle
manufacturers for each vehicle type in such a way that unintended activation is unlikely.
Timing
The time between crash detection by a sensor or by pressing the eCall button and the call initiation
should not exceed 20 seconds. The NAD is responsible for the call initiation. An acknowledgement
05/05/2006 6 Version 13

Clarification Paper – EG1 Performance Criteria
from the PSAP to the IVS that the MSD has successfully been transmitted has to be presented to the
driver and stored by the IVS.
The recommended performance criteria in relation to timing are:
� Crash signal distribution time T0 [time from airbag detonation (i.e. time of crash output signal
generation) to reception at the eCall system] - XXX seconds. TDB, by the vehicle
manufacturers
� Bundling of the MSD within XXX seconds.
� Acknowledgement time XXX seconds. (PSAP sending an acknowledgement to the IVS that
the PSAP has received the MSD)
2.4 IVS2MNO
Time
The recommended performance criteria in relation to timing are:
� Call initiation time T1 XXX seconds. [Time from crash signal reception until the NAD
successfully* registers on the network and initiates a E112 call (�)]
*To be clarified: scan for strongest channel time [time it takes the mobile phone to scan for the
strongest channel].
2.5 Mobile Network Operator
eCall is a pan-European system which is building on 112 and E112, which means that full roaming
capabilities should be provided. Regarding the back-up solution if eCall fails the Mobile Network
operators should still provide the cellular location based on the best effort principle. This also means
that the Mobile Network Operators should treat eCall as an E112 call with the same priority through
their core network and add the MSD to the E112 call.
2.6 MNO2PSAP
Time
The recommended performance criteria in relation to timing are:
� Voice call transmission time T21 < 4 Seconds. [Time it takes for the voice call to reach the
PSAP]
� MSD transmission time T31 < 4 Seconds. [Time it take to transfer the MSD to the PSAP]
Since the MSD transmission technologies are voice-based, i.e. transmitted as part of the voice channel,
the voice call and MSD transmission time are assumed to be identical (even if this might not be a
100% correct statement theoretically).
05/05/2006 7 Version 13

2.7 Public Service Answering Point
Clarification Paper – EG1 Performance Criteria
Map accuracy
In the case of an emergency call, one critical phase of the process is to be able to locate precisely on a
map the position of the caller from GNSS coordinates pairs (one or several) and to derive an address
which can be sent to emergency services.
The target for the map accuracy is 15m – measured against WGS84.
The E-MERGE project recommends that the vehicle send it’s last 3 GPS positions (See Emerge final
report: Direction of travel derived from the last three GPS positions with 30 meters interval, which
also has been adopted by the DG eCall. 8
The performance criteria for the mapping accuracy are:
� Road geometry
o Completeness of the road geometry down to the lowest local level: a road is present or
not in the DB; and
o Accuracy of the road geometry: the geometry is precise to 15 meters.
� Road naming
o In Artery category 1 to 4: 99.9% must have a name;
o In Artery category 5: 97% must have a name; and
o Accuracy of the road naming: each road name must be the correct.
Operational procedure
The Operational procedures related to the PSAP operator when receiving an emergency call differ
from Member State to Member State with respect to the performance indicators that are expressed in
time. These performance indicators do have however one common denominator: in all Member States
they are laid down in lawgiving regulations.
But overall the operational procedure is the same:
• Answering incoming emergency calls
• Evaluation of incoming calls
• Forwarding to 2 nd stage PSAP or emergency control room
• Answering of incoming emergency calls from the 112 centre by the 2 nd
stage PSAP or emergency control room
• Dispatching of emergency unit
• Time to arrive on the location of the emergency
8 GTP, Encoding Specification, 21 March 2003, Version 1.0 (22.17 and 22.18)).
05/05/2006 8 Version 13

Clarification Paper – EG1 Performance Criteria
The different sequential stages are governed by the performance indicators. A matrix of these
indicators of 3 different Member States is captured in the Position Paper produced by the sub-working
group PSAP eCall requirements. 9
These stages are based on vast experience and best practice. The difference in the time criteria is
mainly dependent on the task description of the PSAP. Some member states assign full evaluation of
the incoming 112 calls before forwarding them further, while in other member states the time that the
message lives at the 112 centre has to be as short as possible, the focus here on time rather than on
evaluation.
Time
The recommended performance criteria in relation to timing are:
� Voice call PSAP reaction time T22

Chapter 3 - Conclusion
Clarification Paper – EG1 Performance Criteria
The availability of eCall, i.e. the number of eCalls that are successfully placed when needed
(automatic triggering) or wanted (manual triggering) are recommended by the EG.1 sub-working
group to be that:
� By 2010 – 90% of all activated and sent eCalls should successfully 11 reach the PSAP
� By 2015 – 95% of all activated and sent eCalls should successfully* reach the PSAP
� By 2020 – 98% of all activated and sent eCalls should successfully* reach the PSAP
The recommendations EG.1 group is that the maximum time from an accident occurs to the PSAP
operator visualizes the MSD and answers the emergency call should not exceed 34 Seconds.
Since eCall is building on the Enhanced single pan-European emergency call number E112 it is
recommended that eCall should be given the same priority through the mobile network with full
roaming capability but also reliability as E112.
The precision of the GNSS positioning within the MSD for an eCall is recommended to be as a
minimum in all environments;
� ≤ 50 meters (in 50% of all cases) 12
� ≤ 150 meters (in 95% of all cases)
It is recommended that the performance criteria for the digital map implemented at the PSAPs have a
accuracy with a minimum of 15 meters – measured against WGS84.
11 Successful means that, at a minimum, the MSD has to be transmitted and the acknowledgement received
12 This is measured against the standard WGS84
05/05/2006 10 Version 13

Chapter 4 - References
Clarification Paper – EG1 Performance Criteria
� 3GPP TR 22.967 V1.1.0
� MSD definition 10102005 v1.5.doc
� PSAP requirements – document by Jan Malenstein
� Emergency call – accident profile and power back-up need discussion paper; document by the
joint Renault/PSA accident LAB
� AirBag deployment strategy (Autoliv presentation)
� MSD description (s)
� CGALIES final report
� EC 2 nd eSafety Communication: Bringing eCall to the citizen
� Finish study on safety impacts of eCall
05/05/2006 11 Version 13

Recommendations for the introduction of
the pan-European eCall
Appendix 10
The full functional specifications of the
In-Vehicle system from ACEA

Draft
European e-Call functional
specifications
In Vehicle System
Version 1.1
Working Document
Author :
Vehicle Functionality Working Group (ECIV)
(Chair Dr. W. Reinhardt, ACEA)

Version 1.0
Last printed 10/04/2006 9:03 AM
European e-Call
vehicle functional specifications
DOCUMENT CONTROL SHEET
Version History
Date Version Main author Summary of changes
01/11/05 0.05 Dr. Form Creation
03/11/05 0.051 Dr. Form Add contributions paragraph 2.2 and 3.4.1
08/11/05 0.6 ECIV Processed document in ECIV-Meeting 8/11/05
13/12/05 0.7 ECIV Processed document in ECIV-Meeting 13/12/05
04/01/06 0.8 Dr. Form Editorial comments from ECIV members included
07/02/06 0.9 ECIV Processed document in ECIV Meeting 7/2/06
03/03/06 1.0 Dr. Form Editorial comments
05/04/06 1.1 ECIV Processed documents in ECIV Meeting 5/4/06
In Vehicle Functionality Working Group (ECIV) Page 2/14

Version 1.0
Last printed 10/04/2006 9:03 AM
European e-Call
vehicle functional specifications
TABLE OF CONTENTS
1 GLOSSARY (TO BE REVIEWED LATER) .............................................................................................. 4
2 SYSTEM OVERVIEW .................................................................................................................................. 5
2.1 HIGH LEVEL FUNCTIONAL REQUIREMENTS............................................................................................... 5
2.2 IN-VEHICLE FUNCTIONAL REQUIREMENTS: .............................................................................................. 5
2.2.1 Phone based solution:...................................................................................................................... 5
2.2.2 Embedded solution: ......................................................................................................................... 5
2.3 INTERFACES .............................................................................................................................................. 6
3 FUNCTIONAL SPECIFICATION ............................................................................................................... 7
3.1 USER-INTERFACE ELEMENTS ................................................................................................................... 7
3.2 ARMING AND DISARMING........................................................................................................................... 8
3.3 MANUAL ACTIVATION STATE CHARTS........................................................................................................ 8
3.4 AUTOMATIC ACTIVATION STATE CHARTS ................................................................................................ 10
3.4.1 State charts .................................................................................................................................... 10
3.4.2 Triggers ......................................................................................................................................... 11
3.4.3 Call Back functionality .................................................................................................................. 11
3.5 LOCALIZATION ......................................................................................................................................... 11
3.5.1 Location accuracy (according to US E911) .................................................................................. 11
3.5.2 Direction of travel.......................................................................................................................... 11
3.5.3 Confidence on Location accuracy ................................................................................................. 11
3.6 TIMING ..................................................................................................................................................... 12
3.7 PERFORMANCE CRITERIA OF THE IN-VEHICLE SYSTEM (IVS)............................................................... 12
3.8 MINIMUM SET OF DATA (MSD)............................................................................................................... 13
4 ANNEX ......................................................................................................................................................... 14
4.1 CORRESPONDING DOCUMENTS .............................................................................................................. 14
4.2 VEHICLE IDENTIFIKATION NUMBER PASSENGER CAR (VIN).................................................................. 14
In Vehicle Functionality Working Group (ECIV) Page 3/14

1 Glossary (to be reviewed later)
Version 1.0
Last printed 10/04/2006 9:03 AM
European e-Call
vehicle functional specifications
API: Application Programming Interface
+BAT: Permanent voltage from vehicle’s battery (e.g. 12 or 24V)
GPS: Global Positioning System
GPRS: General Packet Radio Services
GSM: Global System for Mobile communications
HMI: Human Machine Interface
IVS: In Vehicle System. This is expected to be a module working either:
- as a stand-alone solution for e-call (to be completed with
connection, interfaces and antennas),
- or as a system to provide necessary information to a customer’s
mobile phone,
- or as an add-on on existing on-board electronic device.
MSD: Minimum Set of Data,
MS: Member State (European)
PSAP: Public Safety Answering Point
SP Identifier: Private Service Provider Coordinate, if any.
UMTS: Universal Mobile Telecommunication Service
NAD: Network Access Device (e.g. a GSM or UMTS module)
MNO: Mobile Network Operator
GNSS: Global Navigation Satellite System
In Vehicle Functionality Working Group (ECIV) Page 4/14

2 System overview
Version 1.0
Last printed 10/04/2006 9:03 AM
European e-Call
vehicle functional specifications
The objective of implementing the in-vehicle emergency call system (eCall) is to automate the
notification of a traffic accident, wherever in the European Union, with the same technical
standards and the same Quality of Services objectives by using the Mobile Telecommunication
network (e.g. GSM) and the European preassigned emergency destination address (e.g. 112).
2.1 High level Functional Requirements
The high level functional requirements of the in-vehicle system are as follows:
• In the event of an accident the eCall system must automatically determine whether or not to
trigger an eCall.
• An eCall must be able to be triggered manually.
• Upon triggering an eCall the eCall system must try to send a Minimum Set of Data (MSD) to
any given mobile network operator (MNO) with the European preassigned destination
address 112.
• The eCall system must also try to establish a voice connection between the vehicle and that
preassigned destination address (e.g. a public safety answering point (PSAP) with 112)
'Actors': eCall 'system'
eCall user
Mobile and Telecommunication network operator
PSAP
2.2 In-Vehicle Functional Requirements:
The in-vehicle system unit is either an embedded unit with an integrated network access device
(NAD, e.g. a GSM module) or a phone based solution, consisting of a standardized interface
and a cellular phone. The interface could be Bluetooth or a standardized cable connection.
2.2.1 Phone based solution:
• IVS must be able to establish a data connection with customer's mobile phone.
• IVS must relay information regarding the connection (mobile phone – vehicle) to the user
(e.g. driver).
• IVS must detect when an 'eCall trigger' has been initiated after a severe accident.
• IVS must transmit via the connection the vehicle ID and other vehicle specific MSD content to
customer's mobile phone. The voice connection must be established by the mobile phone to
the PSAP.
´Actors: Vehicle
Mobile Phone (must provide position with the required accuracy
and must put together the MSD, in addition location information
can be provided by the vehicle)
2.2.2 Embedded solution:
• IVS must detect when an 'eCall trigger' has been initiated.
• IVS must initiate eCall voice connection with mobile network operator (MNO).
• IVS must send the MSD to MNO.
In Vehicle Functionality Working Group (ECIV) Page 5/14

Version 1.0
Last printed 10/04/2006 9:03 AM
European e-Call
vehicle functional specifications
• a call back voice connection has to be initiated between IVS and PSAP in case of a
disconnected eCall.
Actors: Vehicle
eCall User
Telecom Network
2.3 Interfaces
Below the two vehicle interface configurations are described.
Example for phone based configuration:
Vehicle-Interface In-Vehicle-System
User-Interface
� Crash-Data
� Power
Embedded configuration:
Vehicle-Interface
� Crash-Data
� Power Supply
In-Vehicle-System
Bluetooth-HFP
Bluetooth
e.g. GSM
GNSS NAD
opt.
SIM-
Card*
Voice
(* use of eCall system without
a SIM-Card must be possible)
Figure 1: Example for phone based and embedded configuration.
Voice
+ part of MSD
MSD
User-Interface
In Vehicle Functionality Working Group (ECIV) Page 6/14
112
112
(opt.)
(opt.)
Design
to be
defined
Design
to be
defined
Voice
MSD

3 Functional Specification
Version 1.0
Last printed 10/04/2006 9:03 AM
European e-Call
vehicle functional specifications
The In Vehicle system must fulfil the specific OEM automotive requirements.
3.1 User-Interface Elements
The eCall system consists at least of the following elements:
1. 112-button (SOS)
This button starts and ends the manual emergency call. The manual call
will only be started when the button is pushed for at least 2 seconds.
A call will be aborted or ended immediately when pushing the button for at least 1 second
during a call or the initiating of a manual or automatic call.
By starting a call, an acoustic feedback (beep for 0.5 sec) will be played.
By ending/aborting a call an acoustic feedback (2 beeps in 0.5 sec) will be played
The call must be given the highest priority.
2. System status indication with colour status light or alphanumerical display. The following
status should be indicated (Implementation according to individual vehicle manufacturer
HMI philosophy):
– that no mobile phone is connected to the eCall system,
– if the Bluetooth connection is being in progress,
– the eCall system is powered ON and ready to make calls,
– a call is being connected or in progress,
– that the eCall system may not be functioning properly,
all colours to be discussed of dimming and blending character.
Any installation should comply with the European Statement of Principles on HMI (ESOP/HMI,
when agreed among the stakeholders).
In Vehicle Functionality Working Group (ECIV) Page 7/14

Version 1.0
Last printed 10/04/2006 9:03 AM
European e-Call
vehicle functional specifications
Figure 2: Example Human Machine Interface for phone based Bluetooth solution
3.2 Arming and disarming
The system is armed when ignition is ON, and disarmed when ignition is OFF.
If an e-Call is ongoing while ignition is being switched to OFF that call must not be terminated
automatically. The system will then disarm after the e-Call was terminated by the user or the
PSAP.
3.3 Manual activation state charts
Manual triggering via a SOS button inside the vehicle pushed by the driver or passenger
In Vehicle Functionality Working Group (ECIV) Page 8/14

EU_eCall
Version 1.0
Last printed 10/04/2006 9:03 AM
European e-Call
vehicle functional specifications
m sc Manual_activation_BT page 1 of 1
Driver IVS Bluetooth_Mobile_Phone MNO
Press SOS Button
Manually_pressed_SOS_button
Aggregate minim um set of data
(Vehicle part: Control, Vehi cl e ID,
Service Provider)
Bluetooth M obile Phone is paired with IVS and registered with M NO.
Initiate_eCall
BT_ready_for_eCall
Send_MSD
Initiate_BT_Handsfree_Voice_Call
ACK_Send_MSD
Initiate_eCall
Aggregate minim um set of data
(phone and vehicle part)
(Phone part: T ime Stam p,
Location)
Active voice call between driver/passenger and PSAP
Hangup_eCall_Voice_Call
Figure 3: State chart for phone based solution and manual activation.
EU_eCall
1
Send_MSD_to_PSAP
Setup_eCall_Voice_Call
ACK_Send_MSD_to_PSAP
ACK_eCall_Voice_Call
Hangup_eCall_Voice_Call
Send_MSD_to_PSAP
Setup_eCall_Voice_Call
ACK_Send_MSD_to_PSAP
ACK_eCall_Voice_Call
Hangup_eCall_Voice_Call
msc Manual_activation_ES page 1 of 1
Driver IVS MNO
Press SOS Button
Manually_pressed_SOS_button
Aggregate minimum set of data.
Initiate eCall.
Active voice call between driver/passenger and PSAP
IVS is registered with MNO.
Send_MSD
Initiate_Voice_Call
ACK_Send_MSD
Hangup_eCall_Voice_Call
Figure 4: State chart for embedded solution and manual activation.
Send_MSD_to_PSAP
Setup_eCall_Voice_Call
ACK_Send_MSD_to_PSAP
ACK_eCall_Voice_Call
Hangup_eCall_Voice_Call
In Vehicle Functionality Working Group (ECIV) Page 9/14

3.4 Automatic activation state charts
3.4.1 State charts
EU_eCall
Version 1.0
Last printed 10/04/2006 9:03 AM
European e-Call
vehicle functional specifications
m sc Autom atic_activation_BT page 1 of 1
Driver IVS Bluetooth_Mobile_Phone MNO
Crash_detected
Aggregate m inimum set of data
(Vehicle part : Control, Vehicle ID,
Service Provider)
Bluetooth M obile Phone is paired with IVS and registered with M NO.
Initiate_eCall
BT_ready_for_eCall
Send_MSD
Initiate_BT_Handsfree_Voice_Call
ACK_Send_MSD
Initiate_eCall
Aggregate m inim um set of data
(phone and vehicle part)
(Phone part: T im e Stam p,
Location)
Active voice call between driver/passenger and PSAP
Hangup_eCall_Voice_Call
Figure 5: State chart for phone based solution and automatic activation.
EU_eCall
In Vehicle Functionality Working Group (ECIV) Page 10/14
1
Send_MSD_to_PSAP
Setup_eCall_Voice_Call
ACK_Send_MSD_to_PSAP
ACK_eCall_Voice_Call
Hangup_eCall_Voice_Call
S end_MSD _to_P SA P
S etup_eC all _Voi ce_C all
A CK _Send_MS D_t o_PS AP
A CK _eCal l_V oic e_Cal l
Hangup_eCal l_V oic e_Cal l
msc Automatic_activation_ES page 1 of 1
Driver IVS MNO
Crash_detected
Aggregate minimum set of data.
Initiate eCall.
Active voice call between driver/passenger and PSAP
IVS is registered with MNO.
Send_MSD
Initiate_Voice_Call
ACK_Send_MSD
Hangup_eCall_Voice_Call
Figure 6: State chart for embedded solution and automatic activation.
Send_MSD_to_PSAP
Setup_eCall_Voice_Call
ACK_Send_MSD_to_PSAP
ACK_eCall_Voice_Call
Hangup_eCall_Voice_Call

3.4.2 Triggers
Version 1.0
Last printed 10/04/2006 9:03 AM
European e-Call
vehicle functional specifications
Automatic triggering generated by a "crash signal", created in the airbag control module and/or a
combination of other sensor data (e.g. gyro, radar, axle load, speed). The car and truck
manufacturers are responsible for the determination of the "crash signal".
The „crash signal“ can be:
- airbag deployment
- other crash information status (� a severe accident has happened), e.g. created in the airbag
control module without deployment of an airbag (e.g. rear crash), in responsibility of the
manufacturer of the specific vehicle.
3.4.3 Call Back functionality
In Case of a SIM-less eCall the IVS must try to re-establish an interrupted call unless the
preassigned destination address (e.g. PSAP) has terminated the call intentionally or the user has
pressed the 112-button for more than 1s (see 3.1).
3.5 Localization
Reference point is vehicle geometric vehicle centre.
3.5.1 Location accuracy (according to US E911)
+-150m 95% of the time
+-50m 67% of the time
90% confidence for both
3.5.2 Direction of travel
Direction of travel to be calculated from the last 3 valid positions.
3.5.3 Confidence on Location accuracy
If the position can not be calculated with the required accuracy (e.g. in a tunnel) the system
should indicate this with the confidence bit in the MSD.
In Vehicle Functionality Working Group (ECIV) Page 11/14

3.6 Timing
Figure 7 : Timing for automatic activation.
Version 1.0
Last printed 10/04/2006 9:03 AM
European e-Call
vehicle functional specifications
< 20s
T1 – time until IVS first attempts
to initiate an eCall into the mobile
network
3.7 Performance Criteria of the In-Vehicle System (IVS)
The objectives of this statement are to provide the performance criteria of the in-vehicle system of the
overall eCall System.
An accident is either detected automatically by crash sensors or other sensors or manually activated by
the driver or passengers. This eCall trigger is transmitted over the car-specific bus (CAN, MOST or others)
to the in-vehicle system. The in-vehicle system aggregates the MSD as specified by ACEA. The IVS is
responsible to deliver parts of the MSD to an embedded mobile phone or via Bluetooth to a paired mobile
phone and to handle all aspects of an eCall such as call initiation, audio management, HMI, MSD
aggregation and preparation.
The HMI of the IVS has to inform the driver, if the e-Call system on board is not properly functioning.
GNSS minimum accuracy as defined by CGALIES, i.e. < 50m for urban and < 150 m for rural or motorway
scenarios.
Timing constraints: The time between crash detection by a sensor or by pressing the eCall button and the
first call attempt (T1) should not exceed 20 seconds. For the call initiation the NAD (Network Access
Device) is responsible. The NAD could be a part of a mobile phone or embedded in the IVS itself. An
acknowledge message from the NAD for the successful transmission of the MSD has to be monitored and
stored by the IVS.
A SIM-less solution is required. False calls should not be a problem, because through the vehicle
identification number (VIN) as part of the MSD a call initiator can be identified. Additionally, the network
operator can deliver the IMEI-Number, which is a unique identifier for the NAD hardware.
Because of the high implementation and maintenance costs no backup batteries will be required.
No certification of the IVS is necessary. The current certification requirements for all the electric/electronic
devices in the vehicles are sufficient.
In Vehicle Functionality Working Group (ECIV) Page 12/14

3.8 Minimum Set of Data (MSD)
Version 1.0
Last printed 10/04/2006 9:03 AM
European e-Call
vehicle functional specifications
The minimum Set of Data (MSD) shall be transmitted by the Network Access Device according
to ETSI ??? (provided by ETSI 3GPP MSG).
Byte
Byte
1
1
Byte
Byte
2
2
Byte
Byte
3
3
Figure 8 : MSD Frame format.
Byte
No.
Name Size Type Unit Description
1 Control 1 Byte Integer M Bit 7: 1 = Automatic activation
Bit 6: 1 = Manual activation
Bit 5: 1 = Test Call
Bit 4: 1 = No Confidence in position
Bit 3:
Bit 2:
Bit 1:
Bit 0:
2 Vehicle
identification
20 Bytes String M VIN number according ISO 3779
3 Time stamp 4 Bytes Integer UTC sec M Timestamp of incident event
4 Location 4 Bytes Integer milliarcsec M GNSS Position Latitude (WGS84)
4 Bytes Integer milliarcsec M GNSS Position Longitude (WGS84)
1 Byte Integer Degree M Direction of Travel
5 Service
Provider
4 Bytes Integer IPV4 O Service Provider IP Address
6 Optional Data 106 Bytes String tbd O Further data encoded in XML Format
Sum: 140 Bytes
M – Mandatory data field
O – Optional data field (default blank characters)
Figure 9: MSD-Format field.
Byte
Byte
4
4
Bit 7 Bit 6 Bit 5 Bit 4 Bit 3 Bit 2 Bit 1 Bit 0
Byte
Byte
137
137
Byte
Byte
138
138
Byte
Byte
139
139
Byte
Byte
140
140
In Vehicle Functionality Working Group (ECIV) Page 13/14
t

4 Annex
4.1 Corresponding documents
Version 1.0
Last printed 10/04/2006 9:03 AM
European e-Call
vehicle functional specifications
Reference to Extended Bluetooth Hands-free-Profile
Reference to ETSI eCall standard to be provided by ETSI 3GPP MSG
Reference to ISO 3779 / SAE J272
4.2 Vehicle Identifikation Number Passenger Car (VIN)
(according to ISO 3779 and SAE J272)
Example DaimlerChrysler:
Verwendung/Applications: USA/Kanada mit/with Code 494/460
Andere Länder mit/other countries with Code 986 |-------+------------------+------------------------------------------
-----------------------|
| W | 1. – 3. | WMI – World Manufactuerer Identifier |
| D | digit | of the manufacturer DaimlerChrysler AG, |
| D | | Stuttgart |
|-------+------------------+-----------------------------------------------------------------|
| A |4. digit |Line: siehe Blatt 3 / see sheet 3 |
| | | |
|-------+------------------+-----------------------------------------------------------------|
| J |5. digit | he 4. character of type designation encoded: see sheet 3 |
| | | |
|-------+------------------+-----------------------------------------------------------------|
| 7 |6. – 7. | (e.g. 199.378) |
| 8 |digit |The last two characters of Mercedes-Benz type designation |
|-------+------------------+-----------------------------------------------------------------|
| X |8. digit |
| | | 3) |
| | |Restraint system code (see sheet 3) |
|-------+------------------+-----------------------------------------------------------------|
| 2 |9. digit | check digit |
|-------+------------------+-----------------------------------------------------------------|
| 3 |10. digit | model year code |
| | | see sheet 4) |
| | | |
|-------+------------------+-----------------------------------------------------------------|
| M |11. digit | production plant (siehe Seite 5 / see sheet 5)|
|-------+------------------+-----------------------------------------------------------------|
| 1 |12.-17. | Fortlaufende, aufsteigende 6-stellige Zählnummer (identisch mit |
| 2 |digit | der |
| 3 | | 12. – 17. Stelle der “EG-Fahrgestellnummer) |
| 4 | |sequential number, rising from 000001 to 999999 |
| 5 | | |
| 6 | | |
In Vehicle Functionality Working Group (ECIV) Page 14/14

Recommendations for the introduction of
the pan-European eCall
Appendix 11
High level requirements for the
in-vehicle system by DG eCall
sub-working group EG.2 (suppliers
perspective)

Clarification Paper – EG.2
High level requirements for
a eCall in-vehicle system
Supplier perspective
Version 1.0
Author(s)
Lennart Strandberg (Autoliv)
Magnus Haraldsson (Autoliv)
Alfred Krappel (Motorola)
Gian Maria Timossi (Magneti Marelli)
Jean-Baptiste Pinchon (Sagem)
Olivier Beaujard (Wavecom)

Table of content
CHAPTER 1 - INTRODUCTION 1
1.1 WORKING PRINCIPLES FOR EG.2 1
1.2 OBJECTIVES 1
1.3 EG.2 MEMBERS 1
1.4 STAKEHOLDERS CONCERNED 2
CHAPTER 2 - EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 3
CHAPTER 3 - SECTOR DESCRIPTION 5
3.1 INTRODUCTION 5
3.2 OPEN ISSUES 6
CHAPTER 4 - EMBEDDED VS. NOMADIC 7
4.1 NOMADIC DEVICE 7
4.2 EMBEDDED DEVICE 9
CHAPTER 5 - SIM / NO SIM SOLUTION 10
5.1 WITH SIM 10
5.2 WITHOUT SIM 11
CHAPTER 6 - COST ESTIMATIONS FOR IVS, EMBEDDED VS. NOMADIC. 12
6.1 FUNCTIONAL DIFFERENCES BETWEEN EMBEDDED VS. NOMADIC. 12
6.2 COST ESTIMATION 13
CHAPTER 7 - AUTOMATIC ECALL TRIGGER 14
7.1 AUTOMATIC ECALL TRIGGER 14
7.2 ABBREVIATED INJURY SCALE (AIS) 14
7.3 CRASH TYPE AND SEVERITY 15
7.4 USING PROTECTION (AIRBAG) DEPLOYMENT AS A TRIGGER FOR ECALL 15
7.5 MAIS VS PROTECTION TRIGGERING 16
7.6 CRITERIA FOR ECALL TRIGGER 18
7.6.1 FRONT, REAR AND SIDE IMPACT 18
7.6.2 ROLLOVER SEVERITY ESTIMATION 19

7.7 ECALL TRIGGER CONCLUSION 19
CHAPTER 8 - IVS FUNCTIONAL REQUIREMENTS, ECALL GENERATOR. 20
8.1 INTRODUCTION IN VEHICLE SYSTEM REQUIREMENTS 20
8.2 IN VEHICLE SYSTEM ARCHITECTURE (PRINCIPLE EXAMPLE) 20
8.3 BACK-UP POWER MECHANISM 21
8.4 SIM CARD 21
8.5 LOCALIZATION ACCURACY 21
8.6 NAD REQUIREMENTS (GSM FUNCTION FOR EMBEDDED DEVICE) 21
8.7 VEHICLE INTERFACES: 22
8.7.1 AUTOMATIC ECALL TRIGGER INTERFACE 22
8.7.2 MANUAL ECALL TRIGGER INTERFACE 22
8.7.3 AUDIO INTERFACES (MIC, SPEAKER) 22
8.8 AUTOMOTIVE REQUIREMENTS: 22
CHAPTER 9 - TRANSPORT PROTOCOL/BEARER 23
9.1 INTRODUCTION 23
9.2 PROTOCOL 23
9.3 DATA BEARER 23
9.4 CONCLUSIONS 23
CHAPTER 10 - CONCLUSION 24
CHAPTER 11 - REFERENCES 25

Chapter 1 - Introduction
1.1 Working principles for EG.2
Clarification Paper – sub-working group EG.2
The approach for establish the EG.2 Clarification Paper has been that all EG.2 members has
been asked to give input to the paper, Autoliv has then compiled the inputs into the document.
The work has been done via e-mail and telephones conferences, no face to face work shop has
taken place.
This document shall be used as a input to the in vehicle system eCall specification.
1.2 Objectives
1. To define if an ECall generator system must necessarily be composed by in-vehicle
mounted devices, or if at list some components could be Nomadic Devices
a. Cons. and Pros. Embedded vs. Nomadic
b. Cost estimations for IVS, embedded vs nomadic.
c. Create block diagram for both systems.
2. Fact finder study on requirements for the In-Vehicle System and a nomadic device
based on the results from “PSAP.1” and EG1
3. Define the high level functional spec. for a in-vehicle system and/or a nomadic devise
as the eCall generator
1.3 EG.2 members
Autoliv Electronics:
Motorola:
Lennart Strandberg, lennart.strandberg@autoliv.com
Magnus Haraldsson, magnus.haraldsson@autoliv.com
Alfred Krappel, alfred.krappel@motorola.com
Magneti Marelli:
SonyEricsson:
Sagem:
Siemens:
Gian Maria Timossi, gianmaria.timossi@mmarelli-se.com
Darren Stratton, darren.stratton@sonyericsson.com
Stefan Gudmundsson, stefan.gudmundsson@sonyericsson.com
Jean-Baptiste Pinchon, jean-baptiste.pinchon@sagem.com
Andreas Kohn, andreaskohn@siemens.com
31/03/2006 1 Version 1.0

Wavecom:
Olivier Beaujard, olivier.beaujard@wavecom.com
Gwenaelle Bonnet, gwenaelle.bonnet@wavecom.com
1.4 Stakeholders concerned
Clarification Paper – sub-working group EG.2
EG.3: Define and specify the in-vehicle system (ACEA), main concern is the cost for a
embedded solution and the lead time to integrate the system in the vehicle, lead time from
decision and to launch of the vehicle is approximately 3 years, this means that the cars that
should be on the market 2009 need to be specified now (Q4 2005).
BC.4: Develop the business case (insurance companies), BC.4 pointed out that additional
services like Theft Notification and Vehicle Tracking System would make the business case
stronger.
PSAP: A safe and robust trigger of automatic eCall to avoided false eCall is of great
importance.
31/03/2006 2 Version 1.0

Chapter 2 - Executive summary
Clarification Paper – sub-working group EG.2
The specification must be on a high level and focus functional requirement, the detailed
implementation of the system will differs from one car manufacturer to another.
One other important issue is that the document writhen in the DG eCALL group can not
describe solutions that are company proprietary as this information will be available for
competitors.
One main issue that has been discussed is Embedded vs. Nomadic devise, this discussion is
manly related to the cost of the vehicle built in part of the IVS.
Both the solution requires integrating in the vehicle architecture there for the time to market is
similar.
From technical point of view booth solutions is feasible even if the reliability requirement
seems to be difficult to meet with a system based on a Nomadic Device.
Embedded or Nomadic system solution will be decided by the OEM:s, functional requirement
must be fulfilled by the selected solution.
31/03/2006 3 Version 1.0

One other main discussion has been SIM vs. no SIM.
Clarification Paper – sub-working group EG.2
The main advantage with the no SIM approach is that there will be no additional cost for the
SIM and that the system will work if the SIM is removed (no risk for SIM removal), the main
disadvantage it that some member states does not allow 112 call from a device that has no SIM
and that it not will be possible to reconnect to the vehicle from the PSAP if the connection is
lost (no phone number to call).
Automatic eCall trigger:
A big concern from the PSAP:s has been the risk for a high number of false eCall. The opinion
of EG.2 is that this not will be a big issue as the trigger system will be designed to meeting
Automotive requirements and quality level.
Only using Airbag deployment as the trigger will not reflect the severity of the crash, delta
velocity (loss of speed) is a better estimate of the crash severity for the different kind of planar
impacts. The delta velocity can be calculated using the X/Y accelerometers available in the
airbag control unit. A threshold on Delta Velocity can be set for each event type to trigger the
eCall system in a robust and safe manner.
To detect rollover crashes might be difficult as the rollover sensor equipment rate is low
(approximately 0.2% of vehicles sold in Europe has roll sensors). The feasibility of detecting
rollovers using X/Y accelerometers have to be assessed.
31/03/2006 4 Version 1.0

Chapter 3 - Sector description
3.1 Introduction
Clarification Paper – sub-working group EG.2
Since the eCall generator must be able to generate the eCall in almost every condition, typical
requirements are:
1. Crash proofness: the eCall generator must continue to work after a crash
2. Capability to work even if the primary car power supply is damaged or the interfaces
have been broken (ie outside antenna)
In principle, all these requirements could be respected both by a system completely integrated
in the car and by a system at least partially composed by Nomadic Devices; in fact, Nomadic
Devices:
1. Have their own power source
2. Can be installed in dedicated compartments in the car that protect them against shocks.
3. Need to interact with vehicle sensors via wired or wireless links
4. Signal reception is not fully optimized within a car without external antenna (due to
new athermic windows for instance)
(Remark: The number of Bluetooth enable phones shall be high enough to become
pervasive)
On the other hand, experience about how people use Nomadic Devices in the car shows that
people don’t use special care; for instance Bluetooth phones are usually left in pockets, so that:
1. Proper battery charge is not ensured
2. In the same way, protection against shocks is not ensured
About point number 2, the car could be fitted with a dedicated compartment, in which the
Nomadic Device should be put by the user, even in this case some questions are still open:
1. Since Nomadic Devices differ one from the others in terms of shape and dimensions,
but also connectors for voice and data communication, how can a generic fixation
system be designed, in order to ensure also that the Nomadic Device itself is protected
against shocks, and provide hands-free communication to injured persons
2. How can be ensured that the user puts the Nomadic Device in the dedicated
compartment?
31/03/2006 5 Version 1.0

3.2 Open issues
Clarification Paper – sub-working group EG.2
1. asking for a standardization of some features of Nomadic Devices, e.g.:
a. battery
b. fixing points
c. maximum dimension
d. connectivity (voice, data, antenna, Bluetooth profiles)
2. putting some alerts that make very uncomfortable to drive if the Nomadic Device is not
properly installed (for instance, in the same way that is already performed in order to
encourage to fasten safety belts)
31/03/2006 6 Version 1.0

Chapter 4 - Embedded vs. Nomadic
Clarification Paper – sub-working group EG.2
The purpose of this chapter is list pros and cons with Nomadic vs. Embedded solution
4.1 Nomadic device
Pros Cons
Cost:
Use of existing customer's equipment (if
compatible with onboard node and application)
Likely higher adoption (due to assumed lower
costs and flexibility).
Flexible solution:
Allows occupants to leave vehicle while keeping
in line with rescue
Convenient - phone can remain in pocket,
purse, etc.
No clutter required in the car (holder, wires, etc.)
Positioning:
Use location from nomadic (if precise enough)
will reduce cost
If possible, use the build in GPS in a smart
phone.
Possible usage of the GPS data from built-in
navigation system
Features:
Allows customer to update/upgrade its nomadic
to get more services.
Other
The nomadic device can be sponsored by
telecom operators.
No SIM-card issues (use existing private SIM)
What if the driver don’t have a phone with him
No call during the following situations:
Requires that the driver brings his phone, risk
for incompatible device,
Device is off, BT off, no BT in handy, batteries
are drained.
BT pairing not realized or user error.
If the device don’t work after impact/crash or
has been ejected from the car!
Bad or no reception, no external antenna.
No automatic roaming enabled (in phone)
Call already in progress
Automotive requirements:
Car environment (ex. temp req. -40 to +85 deg.)
Mobile phones are qualified for -20 to +55 deg.
Validation needs for each new phone?
The introduction of new equipment/features in
cars is subject to stringent methods and
planning for which the eCall introduction needs
to be aligned.
The embedded part of a the nomadic solution
requires the same qualification as complete
embedded solution
BT profile: In order to use nomadic to trigger
the call and send MSD, there might be a
specific BT profile. It doesn't exist yet, and will
likely not be available on any new phone soon.
Market adoption to be further investigated.
Could be limited to high range mobiles at
beginning
Location/GPS: Nomadic will be inside the
vehicle without aerials: even with latest a-GPS,
location is not secured for a trip duration;
The availability of mobile phones with GPS is
not known within appropriate time frame.
Enhancement of positioning with dead
reckoning is difficult with nomadic device.
Keep it simple: eCall doesn't require
sophistication but reliability. Concern about how
OEMs will keep car's node in line with new
devices
Interoperability between each mobile phone and
onboard node can not be guaranteed. (See
issues at existing BT hands free speaking
devices).
On board node is leaving to customer the
choice to get compatible device and to make it
work for each trip : non systematic approach
would likely kill any public/insurance incentive
approach
31/03/2006 7 Version 1.0

(lost, stolen, or even no phone)
Clarification Paper – sub-working group EG.2
HMI: because the pairing process between
Nomadic phone and in-vehicle interface box can
be complex (secure access, PIN code, error
management, etc…), the in-vehicle box
probably need display and keyboard (same as
BT car kit for example) => cost and inter
operability
Data bearer (see chapter 9) has to be supported
by the devices and supported by Bluetooth.
31/03/2006 8 Version 1.0

4.2 Embedded device
Pros cons
Safety/security:
Car standard compliant and robust design will
secure function in most accident situations
Embedded device would allow a more secure
link to on-board electronic and better REM
control
Secure functionality due to limited and tested
services.
No risk of changing parameters – like it is
possible with a mobile phone today
Cost:
Less diversity would allow standard design, then
likely volumes to few OES and low costs
The system and incentives from insurance
companies, we are already building products
today that contain a GSM engine and these
products are subsidized by insurance
companies.
Features:
Embedded device could allow other car related
telematics like safety and security, and remote
control and diagnostic without needing anyone
in.
Can be linked or embedded into other on-board
electronics, allowing further cost reduction and
applications
SVT service: to track the car in case it's being
stolen , but the concept is already there and we
believe that it could be feasible.
Only scenario allowing systematic fitment and
activation, then supporting rapid ramp up IF
PUBLIC and/or INSURANCE FINANCIAL
INCENTIVE
Validation:
No validation needed for each new mobile
phone on the market.
Life cycle of the embedded system is a
problem that can be overcome – we can think
that a module integrated in an embedded
system could last 10 years whereas we can't
expect a Nomadic device to have such a
lifetime.
Clarification Paper – sub-working group EG.2
Automotive requirements:
Car industry standards are requiring more
expensive components when nomadic is just
complying to electronic standards
Technology is frozen for vehicle's life (but eCall is
not requiring high tech !)
The introduction of new equipment/features in
cars is subject to stringent methods and planning
for which the eCall introduction needs to be
aligned
Cost: Specific cost added to vehicle price tag if no
public or insurance support
This pledge to push for a “more than eCall” usage
where additional services could be provisioned
(insurance, remote diagnostics, service providers)
ISO TC204 and ETSI working in Liaison:
To be viable, the Standards need to have a useful
life of 10-15 years
This means that a car new in 2010 will still need to
use the system in 2030, and a car manufactured
10 years after will still require the service in 2040
!!!
(Therefore whatever Standards we develop must
be able to migrate as telecommunications
technology changes.)
Wireless systems evolution (what if GSM is 100%
replaced by UMTS or even newer technology?)
Coverage issues: what if no wireless coverage
(also applicable to nomadic device)
31/03/2006 9 Version 1.0

Chapter 5 - SIM / no SIM solution
Clarification Paper – sub-working group EG.2
The purpose of this chapter is list pros and cons with SIM vs. no SIM solution
Conclusion: From a cost point of view a solution with out SIM is preferable however to day not
all member states allow 112 calls without SIM, the main disadvantage with no SIM is that the a
eCall ECU without SIM not will be able to transmit FSD to a SP
5.1 With SIM
With SIM Pros Cons
Safety / Security Clear Identification of the calling
device through the SIM id.
Environmental
Requirements
The overall application
must comply with
automotive constraints
Operator All Operators will allow 112 calls
Cost
Features
Validation
Ownership of the SIM
• Clear identification of
the devices
• Billing identification
• Can allow extended
services and data
communication
SIM presence can allow
additional features
• Update of SIM data by
operators
• SMS / GPRS calls
(telematics,
maintenance, …)
The SIM can be removed either in
a crash or stolen, then the
security feature becomes
unavailable.
However the SIM could be heavily
embedded in the device (soldered
to the PCB)
SIM plus holder specially qualified
to support required Temperature /
Humidity / Vibration levels.
Who pays the service
(subscription + communication) ?
BOM : SIM holder, Accessibility of
the SIM
Additional features might interfere
with emergency calls (additional
validation)
Need to validate the solution with
SIM providers for
• SIM characteristics
(levels, speeds,
features)
31/03/2006 10 Version 1.0

Clarification Paper – sub-working group EG.2
• Environmental
constraints
• Additional features
present at the same
time
Life cycle Embedded solution life cycle is
linked to SIM life cycle
• Hardware life cycle
(Temp/humidity/vibratio
n)
• Network life cycle
(compatibility with
networks)
5.2 Without SIM
Without SIM Pros Cons
Safety / Security No risk of SIM removal. No clear identification of the
caller.
Not possible to establish a call
from PSAP to the vehicle (no
phone number to dial)
Environmental
Requirements
The overall application
must comply with
automotive constraints
Embedded device qualified by
design, self compliant from the
beginning.
All operators must allow 112
without SIM, this is not the case
today
Operator Not sexy for operators, only a
network cost item for
emergency calls without
possibility of additional source
of revenues.
Not all operators allow 112 call
Cost No additional cost, no SIM holder,
no SIM accessibility constraint
Features Dedicated to emergency call
only,
Validation Off the shelf embedded device
validated for emergency calls.
Life cycle Same life cycle as the embedded
device
without a SIM.
No possibility of additional
features, only emergency scope
31/03/2006 11 Version 1.0

Clarification Paper – sub-working group EG.2
Chapter 6 - Cost estimations for IVS, embedded
vs. nomadic.
6.1 Functional differences between embedded vs. nomadic.
The table below includes the functions needed in the vehicle embedded part of the eCall
generator (eCall ECU).
Embedded Nomadic
NAD (GSM module) X N/A (*)
GPS X N/A(*)
Bluetooth N/A X
Vehicle interface (CAN, Buttons) X X
CPU X X
Memory X X
Connectors X X
Power supply X X (**)
External antenna interface X N/A
Housing X X
SIM Card Holder X (***) N/A
Back-up power X X
Back-up antenna (GSM) Optional N/A
* The cost for a nomadic device with GPS (smart phone) will be an added cost for the
customer.
** Also the nomadic device needs to be charged.
*** SIM or no SIM discussions (se chapter 5 SIM or No SIM solution)
Nomadic device might require a new Bluetooth profile that supports transmission of trigger and
MSD to the smart phone and transmission of acknowledge from the smart phone to the on
board part of the Nomadic system.
31/03/2006 12 Version 1.0

6.2 Cost estimation
Clarification Paper – sub-working group EG.2
The cost estimation does not include costs for microphone, speaker, MMI (manual trigger),
external antennas.
Embedded Device:
On board device cost for automatic ECall will be

Clarification Paper – sub-working group EG.2
Chapter 7 - Automatic eCALL trigger
7.1 Automatic eCall trigger
It is of great importance that the automatic eCall trigger must be safe and robust, the trigger
criteria shall reflect the crash severity and must be designed so that a minimum of false eCall is
generated.
Only protection trigger status (Airbag deployment) does not give information about the crash
severity.
7.2 Abbreviated injury Scale (AIS)
The AIS is a standard scale used to evaluate the injury level of an occupant during crash, this
scale could be used by the PSAP:s to classify the injury level.
The MAIS is the maximum AIS recorded during a crash for all occupants in one vehicle
AIS Value Injury Characterization
0 No Injury
1 Minor
2 Moderate
3 Sirius
4 Severe
5 Critical
6 Maximum/Fatal
31/03/2006 14 Version 1.0

7.3 Crash type and severity
The diagram below describes the severity for different crash types
Clarification Paper – sub-working group EG.2
In rollover crashes the risk for injury is higher compared to frontal, side and rear impacts.
7.4 Using protection (Airbag) deployment as a trigger for eCall
Restraint device (sensor) equipment rate:
2005
From unit sold
2005
From cars tested by EuroNcap
Frontal ~92% 100%
Side ~60% 85.2%
Rollover ~0.2% ?
The table shows that very few rollover crashes will generate a eCall if only the protection
deployment is used as a eCall trigger.
31/03/2006 15 Version 1.0

7.5 MAIS vs Protection Triggering
Frontal impacts MAIS vs protection Triggering:
Clarification Paper – sub-working group EG.2
Source: CCIS data (2335 cases), vehicles from 1989 to 2000, Single frontal impacts, seat
belted drivers.
Source: Selected Driver, Vehicle, and crash characteristics in frontal and near-crashes with
known longitudinal Delta V: Nation Automotive Sampling System Crashworthiness Data
System Calendar Years 1993-1996, passenger Cars of Model Years 1986-1997
The tables shows that approximately 10% of the frontal impacts with airbag deployment the
MAIS is >= 3
31/03/2006 16 Version 1.0

Side impacts MAIS vs protection Triggering:
The information in the table is extracted from a NHTSA/NCSA study:
Clarification Paper – sub-working group EG.2
“Real world experience of Side Impact Air Bags in the Special Crash Investigations (SCI)
program”, Umesh Shankar, National Highway Traffic Safety Administration.
Rear impacts MAIS vs protection Triggering:
Not much information is available as few vehicles are equipped with active systems triggered in
case of rear crashes.
Rollover MAIS vs protection Triggering
Today, very few vehicles are equipped with rollover detection systems, therefore no statistics
exist for this kind of protection device.
Rollover detection systems are using an expensive gyroscope, an eCall system shall be able to
detect rollovers using only cheap sensors as accelerometers.
Protection deployment conclusion
• Not all vehicles are equipped with protection system for rear and rollover
• Protection can be trigged for non-severe crashes
• Only protection trigger status does not give information about crash severity
31/03/2006 17 Version 1.0

7.6 Criteria for eCall trigger
7.6.1 Front, Rear and Side impact
Clarification Paper – sub-working group EG.2
As described in chapter 7.5 the protection triggering (airbag deployment) doesn’t give a the
information of crash severity and a very few rollover crashes will generate a eCall as the
equipment rate is low
In order to give e more useful information for the PSAP:s a dedicated trigger criteria seems to
be needed, the criteria chall:
• Detect all type of crashes, even for vehicle that are not equipped with related protection
systems
• Give a better estimate of the event severity and therefore the injury risk
• Set requirements that will allow safe and robust triggering
Delta velocity (loss of speed) is a better estimate of the crash severity for the different kind of
planar impacts :
The delta velocity can be calculated using the X/Y accelerometers available in the airbag
control unit.
A threshold on Delta Velocity can be set for each event type to trigger the eCall system in a
robust and safe manner.
31/03/2006 18 Version 1.0

7.6.2 Rollover severity estimation
Clarification Paper – sub-working group EG.2
As described in chapter 7.4 very few vehicles sold in Europe is equipped with rollover sensors,
the possibility to detect rollovers using X/Y accelerometers that are used for Front, Rear and
side impact has to be evaluated.
Conclusion of rollover severity, a study performed by NCAC (FHWA/NHTSA National Crash
Analysis Center and the George Washington University)
• Belted Occupants
o Not Ejected represent 35.3% of MAIS 3+ injuries
o 45% in Rollovers with 2+ Roof Impacts
o Number of Roof Impacts is Good Severity Measure for Single Vehicle Crashes
o Multi-vehicle Crashes Have Higher Injury Risk
o Need Added Injury Severity Measures
• Pre-roll Injuries - Belted Occupants
o For pre-roll multi-vehicle collisions need pre-rollover crash severity measure +
rollover severity measure
o For pre-roll fixed object collisions need pre-rollover crash severity measure +
• Unbelted Occupants
rollover severity measure
o Ejected are 32.5% of MAIS 3+F Injuries
o Nr. of Roof Contacts is a Good Severity Measure
o Non-ejected are 23% of MAIS 3+ Injuries
o Pre-roll Crash Severity is Important Factor – Need Additional Severity
Measure
The study shows that nr. of roof contacts is a good severity measure
7.7 eCall trigger conclusion
• Protection deployment is not equal to eCall trigger, dedicated eCall trigger criteria shall
be used
• A threshold on Delta Velocity gives a better estimate of the crash severity (MAIS)
• The Delta Velocity should also be included in the MSD as this will give a better
information for the PSAP:s about the crash severity then airbag deployment
• Robust detection of planar events is possible by using X/Y accelerometers available in
airbag control units
• Rollover sensor equipment rate is low, the feasibility of detecting rollovers using X/Y
accelerometers have to be assessed
31/03/2006 19 Version 1.0

Clarification Paper – sub-working group EG.2
Chapter 8 - IVS functional requirements, eCall
generator.
8.1 Introduction In vehicle system requirements
The requirements for the in vehicle system must be specified on a
functional/performance level. The final solution that meet the functional requirements
will differs from one car manufacturer to an other depending on vehicle architecture
(Net work, connectors …)
The flowing documents contain requirements that the in vehicle system should fulfill
• 3GPP TR 22.967 V1.1.0
• MSD definition 10102005 v1.5.doc
• EG1- eCall Performance Criteria
• Clarification Paper – sub-working group PSAP eCall requirements
• European eCall functional specifications In vehicle System, Author Vehicle
Functionality Working Group (ECIV, ACEA)
8.2 In vehicle system architecture (principle example)
The system architecture will differs from on OEM to another, the purpose if this block diagram
is to give a principle example.
31/03/2006 20 Version 1.0

Clarification Paper – sub-working group EG.2
• SRS Module (Airbag Control Unit), calculates the crash severity and generates
automatic eCall trigger
• ABS Module, data from ABS sensors can be used for dead reckoning input to the
GNSS device (GPS)
8.3 Back-up power mechanism
The eCall ECU shall be able to transmit MSD if the main power is lost
8.4 SIM card
ECU The eCall ECU shall support embedded SIM
8.5 Localization accuracy
Specified in “Clarification Paper EG1- eCall Performance Criteria”
The specified accuracy is < 50m for urban and < 100 m for rural or motorway scenarios.
This accuracy will be achieved by GPS. GPS in combination with dead reckoning (DR) will
increase the accuracy especially in urban areas, for DR differential wheel ticks can be used this
information as normally available on the CAN network
8.6 NAD requirements (GSM function for embedded device)
Communication requirements RF / Radio Requirements
• At least dual band 900/1800 MHz
• At least GPRS
• A-GPS support?
HW interfaces support (example of interfaces)
• General IO-Ports
• Standard buses UART / I2C / SPI / parallel / USB / …
• Audio : Hands-free, echo cancellation (min VDA type 2)
• External antenna support
• SIM card support
Power management
• Low power consumption modes
SW support
• Depending on eCall generator ECU architecture
Conformance requirements
• The NAD (GSM module) has to support ‘eCall’ as defined at ETSI (see chapter 8).
• Supplier certified according ISO/TS16949
• Automotive qualified regarding reliability test (shock, temperature, vibration, …)
• IMDS listed
31/03/2006 21 Version 1.0

• GADSL compliant
8.7 Vehicle Interfaces:
Clarification Paper – sub-working group EG.2
The vehicle interfaces are depending on vehicle manufacturer, for example the transport layer
of the CAN network differs from one manufacturer to another. Therefore the interfaces must be
specified by the actual car manufacturer; only the content of the data needed for the eCall
system should be specified.
8.7.1 Automatic eCall trigger interface
Physical interface will most probably not be standardised, it will be different from one vehicle
manufacturer to another depending on vehicle architecture.
Example of interface: CAN, LIN
8.7.2 Manual eCall trigger interface
The requirement is that there should be a manual trigger. The interface will most probably not
be standardised, it will be different from one manufacturer to another depending on vehicle
architecture.
8.7.3 Audio interfaces (mic, speaker)
The requirement it that there should be an eCall speaker and microphone.
Most car manufacturer is to day using the car Audio system amplifier and speaker for Hands
Free telephony, from crash worthiness aspect the eCall system needs a dedicated speaker and
microphone.
It is important to pursue autonomy of eCall system therefore a dedicated speaker and
microphone must be used.
8.8 Automotive requirements:
The in vehicle system must fulfill the automotive requirements:
• Operating temperature rage (-40°C to +85°C)
• EMC compatibility
• Reliability
• Resistance to shock, vibrations, corrosion, water
31/03/2006 22 Version 1.0

Clarification Paper – sub-working group EG.2
Chapter 9 - Transport protocol/Bearer
9.1 Introduction
When the eCall unit has detected a crash, a voice connection to PSAP shall be established.
Together with the voice call, the PSAP operator should be able to get the position of the car and
the triggers that caused the eCall initiation, and all the other data included in MSD (minimum
set of data).
9.2 Protocol
The protocol to use is not decided yet, but strong candidates are:
• GTP (Global Telematic Protocol)
• GSM Signalling protocol
9.3 Data bearer
How to send data over voice is not decided either at this point, but the discussions are including
following candidates:
Data not over voice channel
• USSD (Unstructured Supplementary Service Data)
• UUS.1 (User to User signalling)
• SMS (Short Message Service)
• UMTS (Universal Mobile Telecommunications System)
True data over voice
• In-band Modem (modem over voice channel)
• DTMF (Dual Tone Multiple Frequency)
9.4 Conclusions
Which protocol and data bearer that shall be the standard for eCall is depending of the outcome
from 3rd Generation Partnership Project (3GPP) Technical Specification Group SA WG13GPP
TR 22.967.
31/03/2006 23 Version 1.0

Chapter 10 - Conclusion
Conclusions:
Clarification Paper – sub-working group EG.2
• eCall in-vehicle system shall be based on embedded devise for safety and security
reasons
• The automatic eCall trigger must be robust en reliable in order to avoided false eCall,
the trigger strategy shall allow estimation of crash severity as this is of great
importance for the PSAP:s
• The eCall in vehicle system shall be specified on functional level, the detailed
specification will differs from one car manufacturer to another as the vehicle
architecture not are standardized, for example different vehicle network
Issues that have to further investigated and/or clarified:
• Transport Protocol/Bearer specification must be frozen (3GPP working group)
• MSD definition 10102005 v1.5.doc 140 bytes shall be used. The content of the eCall
qualifier part (18 bytes) shall be further evaluated, include delta velocity as this makes
it possible to estimate the crash severity
• eCall E-112 without or with SIM not yet decided
• Certification strategy for the IVS not decided
31/03/2006 24 Version 1.0

Chapter 11 - References
• 3GPP TR 22.967 V1.1.0
• MSD definition 10102005 v1.5.doc
• EG1- eCall Performance Criteria
Clarification Paper – sub-working group EG.2
• Clarification Paper – sub-working group PSAP eCall requirements
• Emergency call – accident profile and power back-up need discussion paper; document
by the joint Renault/PSA accident LAB
• European eCall functional specifications In vehicle System, Author Vehicle
Functionality Working Group (ECIV, ACEA)
31/03/2006 25 Version 1.0

Recommendations for the introduction of
the pan-European eCall
Appendix 12
Options for eCall MSD signalling,
GSME Position, 21 April 2006

GSM Europe
Eirini Zafeiratou, Director GSME
Diamant building
Bd. Reyers 80
B- 1030 Brussels
Tel: +32 2 706 81 06
GSM+ 32 478 31 98 07
E-mail: ezafeiratou@gsm.org
www.gsmeurope.org
GSME POSITION
Options for eCall MSD signalling
21 April 2006

Scope
eCall is an automatically or manually initiated E112 voice call supplemented by a Minimum Set of
Data (MSD) containing vehicle specific and high accuracy location information. Using this
information, the emergency services can accurately locate and provide more rapid assistance to
accident victims, thus saving more lives. As with the E112 call, the integrity of the MSD sent from
the vehicle to the PSAP has to be ensured. It is expected that the MSD will be sent either during
the E112 call set-up or immediately following the establishment of the voice call.
The eCall Minimum Set of Data (MSD) is sent from an In Vehicle System (IVS), across 2G and 3G
mobile networks (MNO), to a Public Safety Answering Point (PSAP). This report will examine the
technical, standardisation and cost related issues for each of the proposed MSD signalling options.
The report will also take into consideration the requirements, as listed in this document, for:
• Call set up and data transmission times
• Bearer robustness and message integrity
• Existing standardised interfaces between the IVS and MNO and PSAP
• Signalling protocols and error correction between each domains
• Acknowledgement of received MSD
• PSAP voice call-back capability
• Roaming
• Privacy
• Security
Finally, the report will draw conclusions and make recommendations as to which of the candidate
solutions should be standardised to provide an efficient, reliable and cost effective MSD signalling
solution for the eCall service.
Page 2 of 22

Contents
1 MSD Transmission Requirements.................................................................................. 4
1.1 Introduction..................................................................................................................... 4
1.2 Requirements relating to E112 call establishment and the delivery of the MSD to the
PSAP.............................................................................................................................. 4
1.2.1 Mobile Network Operator Support for eCall.................................................................... 4
1.2.2 Size of MSD ................................................................................................................... 5
1.2.3 Call set up and data transmission times......................................................................... 5
1.2.4 MSD acknowledgement ................................................................................................. 6
1.3 E112 voice call requirement ........................................................................................... 6
1.3.1 PSAP Call-back requirement.......................................................................................... 6
2 IVS network access ....................................................................................................... 7
3 Roaming requirement..................................................................................................... 8
4 Privacy considerations ................................................................................................... 9
5 Security and fraud considerations ................................................................................ 10
6 candidate MSD signalling solutions.............................................................................. 11
6.1 SMS – Short Message Service..................................................................................... 11
6.2 UUS – User to User Signalling ..................................................................................... 12
6.3 USSD - Unstructured Supplementary Service Data..................................................... 13
6.3.1 USSD case study ......................................................................................................... 14
6.4 GSM CS Data............................................................................................................... 14
6.5 DTMF – Dual Tone Multi-Frequency ............................................................................ 14
6.6 In-band Modem / Signalling application........................................................................ 15
6.6.1 In band modem case study .......................................................................................... 15
7 Summary and comparision of options .......................................................................... 18
8 Standardisation ............................................................................................................ 19
9 Conclusions.................................................................................................................. 20
9.1 Decision:....................................................................................................................... 20
A.1 Appendix A – Level 1 ................................................................................................... 21
Report Glossary .............................................................................................................................. 21
Report Abbreviations ...................................................................................................................... 21
Report References.......................................................................................................................... 22
Page 3 of 22

1
1.1 Introduction
1.2
1.2.1
MSD TRANSMISSION REQUIREMENTS
The eCall system utilises existing 2G and 3G mobile networks to communicate between a vehicle
and a public emergency service centre. There is no requirement for the mobile network operator
(MNO) to access or modify the Minimum Set of Data (MSD) sent by the In-Vehicle System (IVS) to
Public Safety Answering Point (PSAP). It is expected that the MSD will be communicated by the
MNO to the PSAP using existing fixed line voice and data services. Whilst the call set-up time and
the time to transfer the MSD from the IVS to the PSAP are important following a vehicle accident, it
is also important to ensure that the MSD is correctly populated and that the call is established in an
efficient manner. To minimise the chances of the call failing due to network congestion, especially
at peak commuting times, and to avoid unacceptably high levels of network registration and
location update signalling, the IVS should not register with a network until it needs to make an
emergency call. It is expected that the IVS will be powered-up, aware of its location, direction of
travel and available PLMNs; in this state the IVS can then quickly access to a PLMN and make the
eCall (E112+MSD).
It should be noted that, as with E112 calls, the eCall is established directly between the vehicle and
the most appropriate PSAP. Some national administrations may wish to redirect emergency calls,
for filtering purposes, to third party service providers but this is not considered to be within the
scope of the eCall service, as defined by the European Commission.
It should be possible to test the IVS system from time to time so consideration should be given to
the inclusion of a test call facility e.g. using a programmable MSISDN, subject to any fraud
prevention considerations
SIM/USIM and SIMless related requirements are yet to be decided, however for the purpose of this
analysis it should be assumed that a SIM/USIM will be present in the IVS. A second report will
consider the need or otherwise to have a SIM / USIM in the IVS.
Requirements relating to E112 call establishment and the
delivery of the MSD to the PSAP
The following requirements are limited to those that apply to establishing an end-to-end emergency
voice call (E112), between the vehicle IVS and the PSAP, and the transmission of the MSD to the
same PSAP.
Mobile Network Operator Support for eCall
Whilst there is no existing legislation mandating MNOs to support eCall, all 2G and 3G mobile
networks within the EU, that support 112 or E112 emergency calls, are also anticipated to support
this service. Although 3GPP is specifying support for emergency calls (VoIP) in the PS (IMS)
domain, it is likely that the vast majority of E112 calls will continue to be circuit switched. To
ensure that the eCall service can be supported by the majority of MNOs in Europe, it should be
designed to operate over existing CS bearers; this should however not preclude the possibility of
an enhanced hybrid CS and PS eCall service in the future e.g. to support the Full Set of Data
(FSD) that might include multimedia elements.
In a recent liaison statement from ETSI MSG to SA1, it was requested that 3GPP take the
following points into account:
Page 4 of 22

• eCall should be supported by IMS and UMTS Terrestrial Radio Access Network and Evolved
UMTS Terrestrial Radio Access Network
• There should be minimal changes to 3GPP Technical Specifications for a satisfactory design;
• Re-use of existing standardised interfaces between the IVS and MNO and PSAP should be
considered.
1.2.2
1.2.3
Size of MSD
Justification: The Minimum Set of Data (MSD) has been defined by the eCall Driving Group in
consultation with the PSAPs and amounts to a maximum of 140 bytes.
Note: The Dutch PSAP authorities expect that, at some future date, the MSD can be increased to
deliver a Full Set of Data (FSD), that could include e.g. number of persons in the vehicle,
deceleration, speed on impact. The maximum size of the FSD has not been specified so cannot be
used to determine the transmission time.
Requirement: The Minimum Set of Data for eCall is 140 bytes.
Call set up and data transmission times
Whilst the call set-up time and the time to transfer the MSD from the IVS to the PSAP are
important following a vehicle accident, it is also important to ensure that the MSD is correctly
populated and that the call is established in an efficient manner. To avoid unacceptably high levels
of network registration and location update signalling, the IVS should not register with a network
until it needs to make an emergency call. It is expected that the IVS will be powered-up, aware of
its location, direction of travel and available PLMNs; in this state the IVS can then quickly access to
a PLMN and make the eCall (E112+MSD).
T1: Pre-call preparation period
Justification: Elapsed time from when the IVS is activated (automatically or manually) to start of call
set-up. During this period the IVS will prepare the MSD for transmission, select the best PLMN
(perhaps on signal strength, location and/or preferred PLMN list), and then access to the preselected
network
Requirement:: T1 (not yet specified but is likely to be

Justification: Elapsed time from when the data is transmitted by the IVS to when it has been
delivered to the PSAP. For the candidate out-of-band signalling methods i.e. SMS, USSD and
UUS, the start of T3 and T2 periods are likely to be approximately the same. For the in-band
signalling methods i.e. DTMF and In-Band Modem, T2 and T3 are consecutive. It is expected that
the user will be kept informed as to the progress of the eCall prior to speaking with a PSAP
operator.
Requirement: T3 should be

2 IVS NETWORK ACCESS
It is envisaged that more than 200 million vehicles will be equipped with eCall systems.
Consequently there is a significant risk that these systems could cause an unacceptable high level
of network signalling if they are allowed to register on networks and perform location updates. A
further consequence might be network congestion at peak traffic times and at a time when
accidents are most likely to occur. To avoid this problem, the IVS should not attempt to access a
network until it needs to make an emergency call. However, to minimise the delay in establishing
an eCall and sending the MSD, the IVS should be powered-up but not registered on a particular
PLMN. In this state it should be aware of all the available PLMNs and have pre-selected the PLMN
upon which to attempt access when an eCall is activated.
As mentioned in 1.2, if an eCall is dropped for any reason and if, subject to existing national
regulatory requirements for emergency voice calls, the PSAP needs to initiate a call-back, then it
shall be possible for the PSAP to call-back the originator of the emergency call. This means that
the IVS should register and remain attached to the network until the emergency has been resolved,
even if the vehicle ignition system has been turned off.
Page 7 of 22

3 ROAMING REQUIREMENT
An eCall-equipped vehicle should be capable of making an emergency call to any available PLMN
that supports 112 and/or E112 emergency calls. Since some European authorities require a SIM to
be present in mobile terminals when making an emergency call, it is likely that a SIM card will be
included in the IVS for this purpose. The advantages and disadvantages of SIM and SIMless
terminals will be discussed in a separate report.
Page 8 of 22

4 PRIVACY CONSIDERATIONS
The Directive on Privacy and Electronic Communication (2002) applies equally to eCall as it does
to E112 calls. Whilst for the purposes of this report privacy may be considered out of scope, it is
worth mentioning that if the eCall MSD is being sent to a 3 rd party, other than a PSAP, then
compliance with this directive, by the network operator, should also be ensured, particularly with
regard to location information. When meeting the requirement for a PASP call-back facility it should
probably be ensured that the IVS alerts the vehicle occupants when auto-answering and activating
the in vehicle microphone. There was a court case in the USA (ONStar verses the FBI) relating to
the use, by the FBI, of the OnStar (eCall) service to monitor private conversations. The 9 th Circuit
Court of Appeals ruled against the FBI, not on the grounds of privacy but because whilst being
'bugged' the vehicle occupants may not be able to make an emergency call; the FBI are expected
to be overcome this minor technical problem.
Page 9 of 22

5 SECURITY AND FRAUD CONSIDERATIONS
Existing authentication and general security requirements apply to the transmission of data using
any of the candidate solutions i.e. SMS, UUS, USSD, DTMF or in-band modem/application.
Similarly it should be ensured that the chosen solution cannot be used for fraudulent purposes e.g.
any programmable MSISDNS used for test purposes.
Page 10 of 22

6
6.1
CANDIDATE MSD SIGNALLING SOLUTIONS
In this section we briefly describe the possible solutions and tabulate the advantages and
disadvantages of each. We then compare their suitability to transport the MSD in a reliable and
cost-effective way when assessed against a list of eCall design criteria. The information in this
section is drawn from various sources, including previous contributions from operators and
vendors.
The eCall service is intended to supplement an E112 call with up to 140 bytes of additional
emergency related information, defined as the MSD. To ensure the widest availability and reliability
the initial eCall service must operate in the CS domain, however, a hybrid CS and PS, or PS only,
based solution can be expected in the future e.g. when IMS support and VoIP emergency calls
become prevalent. SIP signalling and other IP /TCP or UDP solutions for eCall might then be
possible.
For the purposes of this report the candidate MSD signalling solutions are limited to the following:
• SMS - Short Message Service
• UUS - User to User Signalling
• USSD - Unstructured Supplementary Service Data
• GSM CS Data - GSM Circuit Switched Data (Alternate speech/data)
• DTMF - Dual Tone Multi-Frequency
• In-band signalling - (voice call) modem / application
Where applicable, data rates of signalling channels are given in 3GPP TS 44.003 section 7.1.3.
SACCH is about 48 byte/s. SDCCH is about 98 bytes/sec. FACCH is 1200 bytes/s (FR) or 600
bytes/s (HR); however the nature of the layer 2 signalling mechanisms specified in section 9 of
3GPP TS 44.006 mean that the actual throughput on the FR FACCH is only around 230 bytes/s.
SMS – Short Message Service
SMS is a reliable widely supported, low cost, acknowledged messaging system that could be used
to transport the 140 bytes of data to the SMS-SC in the home network. Although normally subject
store and forward, and mobile availability delivery delays, the SMS-SC could be configured to
prioritise the delivery of the SMs containing the MSD to the same PSAP, to which the E112 voice
call has been routed. Should it be necessary to increase the amount data in the future then SMs
can be concatenated to overcome the 160-character limitation.
The SM is normally sent on an SDCCH. If sent during a call, after TCH allocation – TCH allocation
normally happens immediately after Setup, in GSM it will be sent on a SACCH and multiplexed in
between Measurement Reports.
The SDCCH data rate is 98 bytes/sec and – post multiplexing - the SACCH data rate is about 24
bytes/s.
Page 11 of 22

The serving MSC routes emergency voice calls to the most appropriate PSAP based on the
serving cell's ID and location; however, SMs are typically routed to the SMS-SC in the HPLMN. As
a result, reliable routing of the E112 call and the MSD to the same PSAP requires a complex
routing solution. Since the PSAP E164 number is not normally available in the IVS, in order to
route the MSD to the PSAP, the SMS Gateway in the HPLMN would need to obtain this from the
VPLMN. In addition to the routing complexity and modifications to the SMS-SC / SMS-GW,
changes to operator roaming agreements might also be needed. If the SMS-SC routed the MSD to
an eCall server or GMLC, the PSAP might be able to download the MSD via IP / MLP, as for the
E112 location information.
Alternatively the IVS might be configured with a Global name e-Call SMS-SC address that would
allow the SM to be routed to the SMS-SC in the same PLMN as the serving MSC. This would
make routing of the MSD and the E112 call to the same PSAP easier, however, additional
functionality would still be needed, in the SMS-SC, to obtain the address of the PSAP to which the
E112 voice call component has been routed by the serving MSC in its own PLMN.
For countries with many PSAPs e.g. Germany with over 990, the PSAPs could group together to
acquire a dedicated SMS-SC. To send SMSs to it, the IVS sets the SMS-SC address in the RP
Data messageto "112" and existing MSC functionality is used to route thses "emergency SMSs" to
the PSAP. Then there needs to be a means to have the central SMS-SC route to the right PSAP
(there is no MAP extension to move Cell ID from the MSC to the SMS-SC), however, the central
SMS-SC can easily look into the MSD for the IVS's location and use this to derive the correct
PSAP.
A further consideration is that the SMS requires a SIM to be present in the terminal (IVS) so this
might preclude the possibility of a pan-European SIM-less eCall IVS based on the VIN ID
contained in the MSD; especially as the SM is not normally terminated in the VPLMN and so the
VIN would not be available to verify the senders ID.
6.2 UUS – User to User Signalling
There are 3 different UUS types, namely UUS-1, UUS-2 and UUS-3 and all 3 variants permit
message acknowledgement.
For UUS1, both parties may exchange UUI (User User Information) during the set-up and the
clearing phases of a call by including User-user information element(s) in basic call control
messages (ALERTING, CONNECT, DISCONNECT, PROGRESS, RELEASE, RELEASE
COMPLETE, SETUP). UUS1 is automatically deactivated when the call is cleared. Although UUS
can be carried over an ISDN D-channel many fixed-line networks limit the message size to 32bytes
(to minimise call set-up delay and to limit the opportunity for fraudulent use of this messaging
system).
For UUS2, both parties may send UUI (User User Information) after the alerting indication has
been sent/received and until the connect indication has been sent/received. The UUI is sent in
USER INFORMATION message and is limited to two messages in each direction. UUS2 is
automatically deactivated when the called subscriber is no longer being informed of the call, i.e. if
the call is established or released.
For UUS3, both parties may send UUI in the active phase of a call using USER INFORMATION
messages. UUS3 is activated explicitly, when a call is originated or after the connection has been
established. After UUS3 has been activated, either subscriber may transfer UUI in USER
INFORMATION messages to the other subscriber on the call. UUS3 is automatically deactivated
when the call is released.
Page 12 of 22

Routing of the MSD to the same PSAP as the E112 call should be straightforward as the UUS is
contained within the ISUP/Q.931 Call Control signalling. Not many network operators have
implemented or use UUS at present, this is mainly due to the fear of its misuse for messaging
purposes. Were UUS to be selected for eCall then there are relatively simple solutions available to
prevent this from happening.
Transit switches within any (fixed) networks in between the PLMN and the PSAP might need
upgrades to support UUS.
It should also be noted that UUS is not permitted in Emergency Call Setup [TS 24.008].
Emergency Setup is sent on SDCCH and, if the standards were changed to allow UUS-1 with
emergency calls, then UUS-1 would slow down the emergency call setup. In this case the MSD
size would probably need to be limited to about 32 bytes. If permitted, UUS 2 with its larger
message size looks better for this appliction, i.e.sent on FACCH immediately when the call has
been established.
Note that over a FR-TCH, FACCH is about two times quicker than SDCCH. Over a HR-TCH
FACCH is about the same speed as SDCCH. Also, FACCH use steals speech frames – but
probably does not impact intelligibility.
6.3 USSD - Unstructured Supplementary Service Data
USSD is widely used by European operators and is a robust, acknowledged / bi-directional,
signalling system that uses SDCCH, or FACCH if sent during a speech call. The message length
for USSD is 180 bytes, which is adequate for the MSD; USSD 2 is unlimited which would cater for
future needs. USSD can be sent either independently or at any time during a voice call.
The routing of a USSD message is done at VLR and, if sent to HLR, at HLR level e.g. the message
from the UE (in this case the IVS) is routed to the HLR that can forward it to an USSD gateway.
The USSD gateway has then to forward the message to the correct PSAP. Since the voice call
follows the routing rules of the originating MSC while the USSD follows the routing rules of the
home USSD gateway it is difficult to send the two parts of the eCall to the same PSAP: there may
be routing table misalignments, especially for the roaming cases (where the USSD gateway and
the visited MSC do not belong to the same network), and moreover the serving MSC can route the
call based on local information, such as the Cell ID where the call is originated, that are not
propagated to the home USSD gateway.
Most of USSD codes are currently deployed by MNOs and a harmonised USSD code would need
to be agreed by all operators for eCall. As USSD is not transparent to the network it has to be
processed / transcoded and forwarded to the correct PSAP via e.g. an existing IP/MLP or GTP
(Global Telematics Protocol) interface.
Both USSD and UUS are Supplementary Services and are not supported by the TS12 (emergency
call) teleservice. If USSD were used to send the MSD independently e.g. prior to making an E112
call, then a SIM card would be needed in the IVS. If, however, USSD is invoked after call set-up
Page 13 of 22

then a SIM might not be necessary, but only if the 3GPP specifications are changed to allow the
TS12 teleservice to support Supplementary Services (SS).
Routeing of the USSD from the visited MSC directly to the PSAP is another possibility. However
this may require extensive new MSC functionality – especially if the MSC has to perform routeing
based on the Cell ID. The same is likely to apply to any USSD Gateway with MAP/SS7 to
SMPP/TCT-IP routing functionality because the PSAP address (E164), to which the emergency
voice call has been routed, would have to be obtained and converted into an ENUM.
6.3.1
6.4
6.5
USSD case study
Successful trials using USSD are being conducted as part of the GST RESCUE Programme that is
intended to deliver a robust commercial rescue service. The RESCUE project will also optimise the
communication between the PSAP and the emergency service vehicles. In the GST RESCUE
project, emergency calls are routed via a 3rd party call centre who in-turn alert the PSAPs when
necessary.
GSM CS Data
GSM CS data at 9.6 bits/s is widely available in European mobile networks and offers a reliable,
acknowledged, data transfer solution. However, when considered for eCall it does have several
significant limitations, those being the long set-up time [ up to approximately 30 seconds?] and
simultaneous voice and data communication not being possible. Although a CS data call can be
converted to a speech call, and vice-versa, transitioning to and from an emergency voice call is
likely to reduce the reliability of the eCall service. Another form of CS data is the fax protocol but
this too has similar limitations. The CS data call would need to be routed to the same PSAP as the
E112 call or extracted by the MNO and forwarded to the same PSAP. Currently Emergency Call
Setup in GSM does not support CS data and alternate speech-data is not supported in UMTS.
Were this option to be chosen a SIM card would also be needed.
DTMF – Dual Tone Multi-Frequency
DTMF is currently used in Finland to provide early eCall type services. Uplink DTMF is sent out of
band by 24.008 messages. Downlink DTMF is sent through the voice codecs and hence is subject
to distortion: this gives problems for acknowledgements.
DTMF signalling is not error corrected and, depending on the voice codec and mode (data rate)
being used, some dual tones may become distorted (twist, frequency and level) and thus
unreadable. Although there is also no automatic acknowledgement, DTMF can be used bidirectionally
to send a receipt. A significant limitation is that the data rate is too slow. One tone per
130ms, or worse, on GSM; thus it would take 36 seconds or more for 140 bytes, or not less than
8.3 seconds for 32 bytes of data [23.014 for UMTS / 03.14 for GSM]. Whilst offering a very simple,
network transparent, low-cost solution, it is unlikely that DTMF could be used to deliver the higher
volumes of data needed in the future. For example, the PSAPs have an expectation that a Full Set
of Data (FSD), which might include details on the number of occupants, deceleration and other
accident parameters, will be needed at some later date.
DTMF routing to the PSAP is automatic and it can be used with or without a SIM card being
present.
Page 14 of 22

Some of the advantages of the DTMF in-band signalling method e.g. easy automatic routing,
network transparency, are also applicable to the in-band modem / signalling application solution,
described next.
6.6
6.6.1
In-band Modem / Signalling application
The in-band modem solution can best be described as an error correcting, bandwidth efficient, inband
signalling application. Should the MSD not be sent, or if the data is lost en route, or delivered
to a PSAP that is not equipped to process eCalls, then the E112 voice component of the eCall
must continue as normal.
The MSD is transmitted to the PSAP in the audio band as soon as the emergency voice call is
established, this transmission time should be kept as short as possible. The time to send the MSD
to the PSAP should be commensurate with the need to deliver reliable error free data, that will
enable the emergency services to locate and assist the accident victims more quickly. It is
expected that the vehicle occupants will be provided with an eCall progress tone/indication and
that once the MSD has been sent, and acknowledged, the in-band modem will open the audio path
to the PSAP operator.
As with most applications there will be many different versions to choose from and, if it is decided
to specify an in-band solution for eCall, then it can be expected that competitive testing e.g. a
'bake-off' and the normal commercial tendering will follow.
Some major benefits of the in-band modem solution are:
• Routing of calls is automatic to the PSAP, greater reliability;
• No transcoding needed in the network, less risk to data integrity;
• No changes are needed to the network, transparent operation;
• Least cost option for network operators;
Some in band modem solutions as the one detailed below offer additional advantages such as:
• Works with or without a SIM being present in the IVS;
• It can operate over all voice call codecs e.g. GSM-EFR, GSM-FR, GSM-HR, AMR-NB, AMR-
WB, EVRC;
• No changes needed to the existing PSAP emergency voice call interfaces
• Note the UE's modem tones need to be disabled if no "answer tone" is received from the
PSAP, otherwise the PSAP operator might be disturbed by loud tones.
In band modem case study
The following data relates to the OnStar system, deployed commercially in the USA, and is
only included as an example of the typical half-rate and full-rate performance that can be
expected from an in-band modem / application.
The delivery time (in seconds, round-trip with acknowledgement) for 140-byte eCall MSD is shown
below. Since eCall’s targeted rollout timeframe is 2009 the improved performance offered by
Page 15 of 22

version 5.0 would appear to meet the eCall criteria. The release 3.0 version, currently deployed in
North America in more than 3 million vehicles, is included for reference.
Vocoder
In-band Modem Version 5.0
(eCall)
(Available in Q406)
In-band Modem Version 3.0
(Deployed today in North
America)
AMR 4.75kbps Half Rate 6.23 18.29
AMR 5.15kbps Half Rate 5.65 17.75
AMR 5.90kbps Half Rate 4.56 16.21
AMR 6.70kbps Half Rate 3.48 14.58
AMR 7.40kbps Half Rate 3.39 14.58
AMR 7.95kbps Half Rate 3.44 14.58
AMR 4.75kbps Full Rate 5.41 17.95
AMR 5.15kbps Full Rate 4.97 17.62
AMR 5.90kbps Full Rate 3.89 16.29
AMR 6.70kbps Full Rate 3.65 14.59
AMR 7.40kbps Full Rate 3.56 14.62
AMR 7.95kbps Full Rate 3.56 14.58
AMR 10.20kbps Full Rate 3.56 14.58
AMR 12.20kbps Full Rate 3.56 14.58
Notes:
• The round-trip delivery time includes positive acknowledgement from the remote peer
indicating that the 140-byte message is received
• In-Band Modem release 5.0 is the modem suggested for eCall. The round-trip message
delivery time for a 140 byte MSD seems to meet the 4 seconds requirement.
Page 16 of 22

• Release 5.0 will be commercially available in North America by the 4th quarter of 2006. This is
an 800 bps modem with significant improvement at the physical layer (less overhead and two
modulating tone pairs instead of one) and data link layer transmission mechanism.
• The modem link establishment time (synchronisation and carrier detection) for both versions of
in-band modem is about one second.
• Delivery time for 5.0 is not yet optimised for GSM AMR Vocoder. It is a more generic version
targeted for CDMA EVRC and GSM AMR Vocoders. As such, there’re still rooms for
improvement in terms of data rate or delivery time.
Some standardisation e.g. specification of the eCall MSD transport application and competitive
testing (bake-off) of the candidate applications could be expected. This might to be done in 3GPP
SA4, OMA, the ITU or by some other standards organisation.
Any capital costs associated with this solution i.e. the in-band transmission of the MSD from the
IVS across the PLMN to the PSAP, are unlikely to affect the mobile network and are limited to the
IVS and PSAP installations.
The in-band modem example performance data provided shows that the existing solution for
OnStar takes about 15 seconds (average) to transfer 140 bytes and receive an acknowledgement.
Whilst this appears slow, compared to a normal emergency voice call dialled from a mobile phone,
where the user can expect to receive a ringing tone or answer within 4 seconds, it is important to
keep the eCall in context. When an accident occurs and the eCall is activated, in manual initiation
mode, there is likely to be a short delay (perhaps 5 seconds) to allow the driver to cancel the call if
necessary. If the call is not cancelled then the IVS will attempt to access a network, establish the
call and send the MSD to the PSAP. Whilst the MSD is being transmitted (about 4 seconds) the
vehicle occupants cannot speak to the PSAP operator, however, following transmission the audio
path to the caller is restored (un-blanked). The elapsed time from when the accident occurs to
when the PSAP operator speaks to the occupants of the vehicle is likely to be less than 25
seconds, which is not unreasonable in these circumstances. Improvements to the in-band
signalling application are expected to reduce the current 15-second average to below 4 seconds.
Page 17 of 22

7 SUMMARY AND COMPARISION OF OPTIONS
MSD Signalling Options and
eCall Criteria
SMS CS
Data
UUS USSD DTMF In-Band
Modem
GSM and UMTS supported Yes No Yes Yes Yes Yes
Circuit Switched supported Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes
Standardised call set-up Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes
Capacity MSD size 140 bytes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes
Predictable low transfer delay
(assumes no delay over MNO-
PSAP interface for transcoded
SMS, UUS and USSD originated
messages)
Yes Yes Yes Yes No Yes
Extensible for FSD Yes Yes Yes Yes No Yes
Error free Yes Yes Yes Yes No Yes
Acknowledgement possible Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes
Co-ordinated E112 & MSD routing No Yes Yes No Yes Yes
Low impact on PLMN architecture Yes Yes No No Yes Yes
Works even if PLMN – PSAP
interface does not support
ISUP/Q.931
Yes Yes No Yes Yes Yes
Easy Pan-European roaming Yes Yes Yes No Yes Yes
Secure & low risk of fraud Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes
Page 18 of 22

8 STANDARDISATION
Depending upon the chosen option for eCall MSD signalling some changes will be needed to the
3GPP standards. Apart from the DTMF, UUS and in-band modem solutions, new mechanisms
would be needed to route SMS and USSD messages to ensure that the E112 call and the MSD
are routed to the same PSAP. If an in-band signalling application is chosen then competitive
solutions could be evaluated and standardised in 3GPP (SA4), OMA or by some other SDO.
It has yet to be decided if the IVS will be SIM or SIMless, however, as previously discussed, it is
very likely that a SIM will be needed if SMS, or the UUS, USSD supplementary services are to
used in conjunction with a TS12 emergency call. Alternatively the 3GPP SS specifications and
MSC implementations would need to change to allow the TS12 teleservice to use these particular
supplementary services.
Further standardisation work may also be needed to speed-up network access, eCall set-up and
subscription handing.
Page 19 of 22

9 CONCLUSIONS
This report has examined several techniques that allow the fulfilment of the eCall requirements.
Many motor manufacturers already offer their own proprietary (call centre based) breakdown and
emergency rescue services. These use a variety of mobile network signalling methods, including
SMS, DTMF and CS Data. In the United States the OnStar system uses an in-band modem to
send data to an emergency call centre / PSAP.
Whilst most of these proprietary services provide road side assistance, lost key unlocking, stolen
car location and other commercial services, in addition to automated accident emergency calls, the
EU Commission eCall requirements are more fundamental. Firstly, as previously mentioned, eCall
is not a commercial service but is simply intended to supplement an E112 emergency call (TS12)
with up to 140 bytes of accident related data. The E112 call, together with the MSD, is to be
routed directly to the responsible PSAP in the normal way.
As MNO support for eCall is not a mandatory requirement, there is no guarantee that all MNOs will
invest in changes to their networks, that brings them little or no revenue, just for eCall. Hence, to
ensure the fullest pan-European availability of the eCall service, it is highly desirable to employ a
signalling system that has little or, preferably, no impact on existing networks. As there is no
requirement for the network operator to process the content of the MSD in anyway it can be
transported transparently from end-to-end. This implies that the preferred solution for eCall
should be based on an in-band modem/application.
9.1 Decision:
21 March 2006: GSMA 3GPPOPs (eCall discussion group) conference call:
It was agreed unanimously that, based on the conclusions of this report, the preferred eCall MSD
signalling system should be based on an in-band modem/signalling application. It was also agreed
that this report should be communicated to GSME with a recommendation that it be adopted as a
GSME report / position paper.
Page 20 of 22

APPENDIX A
A.1 Appendix A – Level 1
[Body Text]
Report Glossary
Term 1 Definition
Report Abbreviations
2G/3G 2nd / 3rd Generation
3GPP 3rd Generation Partnership Project
ASN.1 Abstract Syntax Notation number One
AMR Adaptive Multi-rate
AMR-NB Adaptive Multi Rate-Narrow Band
AMR-WB Adaptive Multi Rate-Wide Band
AUC Authentication Centre
CDMA Code Division Multiple Access
CLI Caller Line Identification
DG Driving Group
DTMF Dual Tone Multi-Frequency
E164 The ITU standard format for international telephone numbers
EFR Enhanced Full Rate
EMTEL EMergency TELephony
ETSI European Telecommunication Standards Institute
EVRC Enhanced Variable Rate CODEC
FACCH Fast Associated Control Channel
FR Full Rate
FR-TCH Full Rate Traffic Channel Traffic Channel
FSD Full Set of Data
GMLC Gateway Mobile Location Centre
GSM CS Data GSM Circuit Switched Data (Alternate speech/data)
GTP Global Telematics Protocol
HLR Home Location Register
HMI Human-Machine Interface
HPLMN Home PLMN
HR Half Rate
HR-TCH Half Rate Traffic Channel
HTTP Hypertext Transport Protocol
IP Internet Protocol
ISDN Integrated Services Digital Network
ITU-T International Telecommunication Union Telecommunication Sector
IVS In-Vehicle System
MAP Mobile Application Part (SS7)
MSG ETSI Technical Committee Mobile Standards Group ( TC MSG)
MLP Mobile Location Protocol
MNO Mobile Network Operator
MSC Mobile Switching Center
MSD Minimum Set of Data
Page 21 of 22

MSISDN Mobile Station ISDN
OMA Open Mobile Alliance
PSAP Public Safety Answering Points (Ambulance, Police or Fire Fighters)
PLMN Public Land Mobile Network
SA1 3GPP SA1 standardizing services
SA4 3GPP SA4 standardizing speech, audio, video, and multimedia codecs
SACCH Slow Associated Control Channel
SDCCH Stand-alone Dedicated Control Channel
SDO Standards Developing Organization
SIM Subscriber Identity Module
SMS Short Message Service
SMS-SC SMS Centre
SMSG SMS Gateway
SS Supplementary Services
TCH Traffic Channel
TCP Transmission Control Protocol
Tel-URI Telephone number expressed as an URI
TS12 Emergency call teleservice
TSG Technical Specification Group
ToR Terms of Reference
UDP User Datagram Protocol
UE User Equipment
UMTS Universal Mobile Telecommunications System
UUI User-to-User Information
UUS User-to-User Signalling
USSD Unstructured Supplementary Service Data
USIM UMTS SIM
VAS Value Added Services
VIN Vehicle Identification Number
VoIP Voice over IP
VLR Visitor Location Register
VPLMN Visited PLMN
XML eXtensible Markup Language
Report References
[1] First Reference
Page 22 of 22

Recommendations for the introduction of
the pan-European eCall
Appendix 13
Certification sub-working group

Draft Proposal
Certification Procedures
for the e-Call service
Produced by the GST - CERTECS European Project
Author : Gérard Ségarra, Renault SAS
Version 1.2 of February 13 th 2006

GST – CERTECS European project Public Document delivered the 13th February 2006
Draft Proposal: Certification Procedures for the e-Call service
Co-operation for Quality
This document is a first draft of the certification procedures proposed by the GST-
CERTECS project to e-Call Driving Group. .
Centro de Tecnologia de las Comunicaciones, S.A.
RESEARCH
2

GST – CERTECS European project Public Document delivered the 13th February 2006
Draft Proposal: Certification Procedures for the e-Call service
Table of Content
Foreword
1. Scope of the document
2. Required Environment for the e-Call service Certification in
Europe
2.1 General certification organizational structure
2.2 e-Call Reference framework
2.3 e-Call certification development process
2.4 e-Call certification operational process
2.5 e-Call certification results
3. e-Call certification procedures
3.1 e-Call TCU type examination (Procedure module B)
3.2 e-Call equipped vehicle type examination (Procedure module B)
3.3 PSAP e-Call terminal type examination (Procedure module B)
3.4 Global e-Call transport network type examination (Procedure module B)
3.5 End to End e-Call system type examination (Procedure module B)
3.6 e-Call TCU product conformity to type
3.7 e-Call equipped vehicle product conformity to type
3.8 PSAP e-Call terminal product conformity to type
3.9 End to End e-Call system conformity to type
3.10 In-Service / market survey
Annexes
– Abbreviations and Acronyms
3

GST – CERTECS European project Public Document delivered the 13th February 2006
Draft Proposal: Certification Procedures for the e-Call service
Foreword
3GT (Third Generation of Telematics) project first and now GST (Global System for
Telematics) are aiming at proposing the use of standards to open the automobile telematics
market. Standards means, public, non ambiguous, free access specifications (free or low
cost specification promoted by standard institutes) enabling the development of high level
quality, interoperable products and services. However, it is not enough to say “my product or
my service is conforming to such standard”, it is also necessary to demonstrate it to obtain the
confidence of targeted customers and public authorities in case of e-Safety services. How to
demonstrate it is the object of the Certification which offers organizations, processes, tools
and competencies to validate new products and services against recognised reference
frameworks and qualified reference implementations.
The CERTECS (Certification of Telematics Components, Systems and Services)
subproject of the European GST Integrated Project has been working on this subject for now
24 months. One of the focuses of this subproject has been the e-Call service and the system
infrastructure which is requested to support it.
E.MERGE and now GST-RESCUE have been advancing the specification, prototyping
and validation of the e-Call service. Moreover, during its September 2005 meeting the e-Call
driving group has created several task groups in charge of progressing key subjects. Renault
as CERTECS subproject co-ordinator has been charged to progress the e-Call chain and e-
Call generator certification procedure (ST4). This document is the result of this work
achieved by ST4.
For more information on GST and CERTECS, refer to the projects WEB sites:
http://www.gstproject.org, http://www.certecs.net
The GST Project is Managed by ERTICO and this document has been reviewed by the current
CERTECS consortium comprising the following partners.
CETECOM PTV
ETSI RENAULT
FIAT CRF TELCORDIA
FORD TRIALOG
JTEST TUV
NAVTEQ
CAUTION: This document shall only be used as a CERTECS contribution guiding the
development and deployment of the e-Call certification procedure in western Europe.
4

GST – CERTECS European project Public Document delivered the 13th February 2006
Draft Proposal: Certification Procedures for the e-Call service
1. Scope of the document
The scope of this document is the emergency call service (e-Call) under definition and
standardization at the European level (under the guidance and control of the European
Commission) such as elaborated in the E.C DG (e-Call Driving Group) of the e-Safety
forum. This service is based on the used of the European Call number 112 which has
been enhanced with the cell position of the mobile (E112) and further extended with the
transmission of a Minimum Set of Data (MSD).
It is then assumed that all required transport and application protocols to be used to
support this service will be carefully selected by European standardization bodies
(ETSI) during 2006 and that the service functionalities, service level agreement and
system level specification guiding the certification will be standard and publicly
available also in 2006.
Consequently, this document is not applicable to proprietary solutions relying on
proprietary specifications or on public standards not being selected at the European level
for supporting the e-Call service such as elaborated by the E.C DG.
It is reminded that the European Commission approach is aiming at harmonizing a
standard pan European e-Call service which shall be unique across the 25 nations of
Western Europe, supporting various public emergency organizations and offering the
same quality of service to all European citizens whatever their vehicle brand or model
and whatever their social condition. Such e-Call service shall be deployed on all new
vehicles, starting in 2010. In such context, proprietary solutions can not meet such
social, ambitious objectives.
It is also clear that the currently proposed e-Call solution is the result of a consensus
among different categories of stakeholders and then can be in the future enhanced to
offer more efficient solutions. Such evolution shall be possible and the proposed
certification process is integrating some evolution mechanisms enabling the necessary
changes.
5

GST – CERTECS European project Public Document delivered the 13th February 2006
Draft Proposal: Certification Procedures for the e-Call service
2. Required Environment for the e-Call service Certification in
Europe
Before starting the e-Call certification procedures which are proposed below in chapter
3, it will be necessary to deploy a certification organization, its associated operational
process and to develop the e-Call certification reference framework necessary to rule
and guide the certification procedures. This chapter is presenting this required
certification environment.
2.1 General certification organizational structure
The e-Call service shall be using the general certification organizational structure
proposed by CERTECS for the certification of telematics components, systems and
services (see the related CERTECS White paper). This organizational structure which is
conforming to the E.C certification global approach, when adapted to the e-Call service,
can be represented on the figure 2.1.1 below.
European
Commission
Components
Systems &
Service
Providers
Certification
Applicants
e-Call Stakeholders
Organization
e-Call Certification
Authority
Deliver Label
and Marks
E-Call Certification
Bodies
Inspection
Bodies
6
Test
Laboratories
Figure 2.1.1: Overview of the proposed organization
Sets the Certification
Rules (Reference
Framework)
Insures the harmonized
Application of the
Reference Framework
accross Europe
Supervise National
Operational certification
Procedures
Achieve the required
Inspections and test
procedures
The respective roles, missions and responsibilities of the entities belonging to this
organizational structure will be described in the next sections.
2.2 e-Call Reference framework
The e-Call Reference Framework will be used as a reference for the certification of e-
Call components, system and service. The Reference Framework is elaborated and
maintained by the e-Call Stakeholders Organization (to be created). It shall contain the
following elements:
� The description of the certification process / procedures to be achieved for
class III (Safety Affecting services class) components, systems and services.
An applicant guide shall be provided for each described procedure.
� The Service Level Agreement (SLA) which will specify the scope of the
certification and the standard(s) which must be implemented for a service to be
conforming to the e-Call. This document shall also identify the quality and

GST – CERTECS European project Public Document delivered the 13th February 2006
Draft Proposal: Certification Procedures for the e-Call service
performance criteria which must be met during the recommended inspection
and tests. Conformance statements shall be provided for all the elements which
are in the scope of the certification.
� The System Level Specification (SLS) which contains the specification of all
standards to be applied, as well as their PICS (Protocol Implementation
Conformance Statement) and PIXIT (Protocol Implementation eXtra
Information for Testing) associated to the required standard protocols. The
SLS may also contain the test suites specifications.
2.3 e-Call certification development process
The e-Call certification development process shall comprise the two main following
sub-processes:
� The e-Call initial development sub-process which consist to develop the initial
e-Call Reference Framework and set up the operational certification
organization having the necessary competences and resources for running the
e-Call certification operational process. This includes the selection of
distinguished (competent) inspection bodies and test laboratories.
� The e-Call certification change management sub-process which shall allow
some evolution of the e-Call certification operational process to take into
account strategic, organizational, legal, technical,...etc. evolutions (see the
figure 2.3.1 below as an example).
• Provisional new
Reference Framework
• evolution impact
assessment
Certification
Authority
Co-operation to adapt the
e-Call certification process
To respond to the evolution
Request.
Release of the change
E-Call Stakeholders organization
7
Consensual Development of
an e-Call certification evolution
Request for a certification evolution
Reference
Implementation
Certification
Bodies
Figure 2.3.1: e-Call certification change management
Inspection
Bodies
Test Laboratories
New version of the e-Call Reference Framework
New test tools
2.4 e-Call certification operational process
The e-Call certification operational process comprises all the activities (see the figure
2.4.1 below) and workflow necessary to respond to a certification request originating
from an e-Call component, system or service supplier (applicant). These activities shall
execute the required procedures such as described here below taking into account the

GST – CERTECS European project Public Document delivered the 13th February 2006
Draft Proposal: Certification Procedures for the e-Call service
scope of the certification (Type certification or conformity to type, nature of the
implementation).
According to the concerned type and to the product / system / service implementation,
one or several inspection body / test laboratory can be involved. The applicant may
select its inspection body / test laboratory in a list of designated / accredited bodies /
laboratories proposed by the Certification Authority. Then, the applicant may sign a
service contract (service subscription) with the selected body / laboratory in such a way
to get a clear commitment relatively to QCD (Quality, Cost, Delais) elements of the
service.
Applicant
Certification
Authority
Certification
Request
Service
Proposal
Certification Contract
Inspection Contract
Certification
Body
Certificate
Delivery
Test Contract
8
Inspection
Report
Inspection
Body
Test Report
Figure 2.4.1: e-Call Certification operational process
Test
Laboratory
2.5 e-Call certification results
As shown on the figure 3.2 below, the certification can be applied to several types of
products / system during several phases of their life cycle. So the results of the
certification procedures can be the following :
� Type examination certificate stating that a given Product Type (e-Call TCU, e-
Call equipped vehicle, PSAP e-Call Terminal, End to End e-Call system) is
conforming to the e-Call SLA and SLS.
� Conformity to type certificate stating that a given implementation of a product or
system type is conforming to the referred certified type.
� Type interoperability certificate stating that a given End to End e-Call system
type composed of certified products is interoperable.
� Renewed implementation interoperability certificate stating that a given
interoperable operational End to End e-Call system implementation is still
conforming to the reference SLA / SLS. Indeed, practically, this means that a
given certified End to End e-Call system implementation is certified during a
specified time period (e.g. one year) and that the certificate will be automatically

GST – CERTECS European project Public Document delivered the 13th February 2006
Draft Proposal: Certification Procedures for the e-Call service
renewed provided that the quality of the considered e-Call system stays at an
acceptable level (to be specified in SLA).
9

GST – CERTECS European project Public Document delivered the 13th February 2006
Draft Proposal: Certification Procedures for the e-Call service
3. e-Call certification procedures
The certifications procedures to be applicable are summarized on the figure 3.1 below
and are related to the type of the considered e-Call chain element. They are also related
to the life cycle of the considered element (end of design, end of manufacturing, in
service).
e-Call Products, system and service are classified as “Safety affecting” that is to say are
belonging to the Class III Product / Systems / Services.
Class III Product / System / service
Module B: Examination of type / design
(Certification Body issues Type-examination certificate)
Module D:
Quality
Management
Audit
Certification Body
Certifies conformity
Module C:
Conformity
To type
Self declaration
of conformity
Registration & Publication
10
Module F1:
Product/ System
Verification
Certification Body
Certifies Conformity/
Interoperability
Module F2:
In service
experience
Figure 3.1: Summary of procedure modules for e-Call certification
Certification procedures are related to the nature of the product / system to be
considered but also to its step in its life cycle (see the figure 3.2 below).
The nature of the product / system is related to the e-Call system supply chain
organization which distinguishes mainly the five following stakeholders!
� The e-Call equipment suppliers which are developping and producing the
Telematics Control Units (called e-Call TCU) in charge of processing the e-
Call trigerring events and executing the e-Call functions conforming to
standards. Such component will be fully integrated in a car and can become
part of the In-Vehicle system.
� The car manufacturers (OEM) or e-Call system suppliers (for the after
market) which are integrating an e-Call TCU in an In-Vehicle system
(connection to the vehicle electronics to detect an incident event; connection
to the vehicle HMI, mainly the audio chain; connection to the roof antennas;
...etc.). OEM are then producing e-Call equipped vehicles.

GST – CERTECS European project Public Document delivered the 13th February 2006
Draft Proposal: Certification Procedures for the e-Call service
� The PSAP e-Call Terminal suppliers which are developping and producing
terminals having the capability to receive, process and present an e-Call in
conformity with the e-Call standards. PSAP e-Call Terminal suppliers are
then producing PSAP e-Call Terminals.
� The PSAPs (Public Service Access Point) which are operating the e-Call
service and as such have to integrate their e-Call terminal in their legacy
emergency systems (in particular with their PBX).
� The Telecom Operators which are insuring the transport of e-Call messages
in conformity to the e-Call transport standards. The Telco are providing
Global Transport Networks.
All these components and systems will be integrated to form the end to end e-Call
system which shall be finally, the real object of the certification.
E-Call TCU Type
PSAP e-Call
Terminal Type
E-Call equipped
Vehicle Type
Design Production In -Service
Type
Examination
Module B
11
Conformity
to Type
Module C
Module D
Module F1
Figure 3.2: e-Call components / system and their life cycle
In Service Survey
Module F2
New e-Call TCUs as well as new PSAP e-Call Terminals and new equipped vehicles
will have to pass a Type examination (procedure module B) before being launched on
the market and then produced.
All produced equipment (e-Call TCUs, PSAP e-Call Terminals, e-Call aquipped
vehicles) will have to be produced according to some quality rules (procedure module
D) and be able to be declared as conforming to type (procedure module C). A product or
system can be required to pass some product / system verification (procedure module
F1) in particular after some evolution of its design.
A Complete End to End e-Call system formed of certified products shall be able to
pass system Type examination (procedure module B) before being put operational. If a
complete system type is replicated, this one will have to answer to some given quality

GST – CERTECS European project Public Document delivered the 13th February 2006
Draft Proposal: Certification Procedures for the e-Call service
rules (procedure module D) and be declared conforming to system type (procedure
module C).
Once operational, a complete e-Call system shall be monitored to verify that it is still
conforming to the SLA criteria used during its certification (procedure module F2). If
deviating from these criteria, some immediate corrections have to be undertaken to
restore the system quality and be able to maintain it in the “End to End e-Call system
certified catalogue”.
In all cases, the e-Call product / system market will be surveyed in order to be able to
detect organization not respecting the certification procedures (cheating). The penalty
for such organization would be the withdrawal of their product / system certificate
leading to the withdrawal of their products / systems from the market. The market
survey cost shall be under the responsibility of the European states. However, the
delivery of the state or E.C marks is charged to the suppliers and will serve to cover the
market survey cost.
12

GST – CERTECS European project Public Document delivered the 13th February 2006
Draft Proposal: Certification Procedures for the e-Call service
3.1 e-Call TCU type examination (Procedure module B)
Three categories of e-Call TCU can be considered (see the figure 3.1.1 below):
� e-Call specialised vehicle embedded unit (box dedicated to this single
function),
� Multi-services vehicle embedded TCU (including the e-Call service),
� Hybrid bluetooth e-Call TCU composed of a car embedded component and a
customer portable component (Nomadic Device) linked by means of a
bluetooth standard interface. Such TCU is also, in principle multi-services
(the nomadic device supporting various services).
Vehicle
Interface
Driver
HMI
Vehicle
Interface
Driver
HMI
GPS Antenna
GSM Antenna
e-Call
Processing
Unit
Processing
Unit
Bluetooth
Module
Complying
SIMGSM
Modem
13
GPS
Bluetooth
Application
Modules
OSGI
JVM
Windows CE
Pilots
Vehicle
Interface
Driver
HMI
Figure 3.1.1: Possible categories of e-Call TCUs
GPS Antenna
GSM Antenna
e-Call Specialized Unit
Hybrid Bluetooth
e-Call TCU
Multi-Service
e-Call TCU
For all categories of TCU, the following examination and test procedures shall be
achieved:
� Examination of the technical file provided by the TCU equipment supplier.
This includes all elements related to risk management and data quality (e.g.
enhanced GPS accuracy).
� e-Call Transport protocol conformance testing (e.g. E112+USSD
conformance).
� e-Call application protocol conformance testing (e.g. MSD / CANCEL /
ACK / EOS application messages sequences, structures and syntaxes).
� Performance conformance testing (e.g. Maximum time necessary to issue a
112 call following the simulation of a crash detection or a manual action, and
an MSD message following a 112 circuit switched establishment).

GST – CERTECS European project Public Document delivered the 13th February 2006
Draft Proposal: Certification Procedures for the e-Call service
3.2 e-Call equipped vehicle type examination (Procedure module B)
Once a given e-Call TCU implementation has been certified as complying to the e-
Call TCU type SLA, this one can be integrated into a given e-Call equipped vehicle type
(see the figure 3.2.1 below).This integration shall include:
� The installation of the GSM and GPS antennas on the vehicle and their
liaisons to the e-Call TCU.
� The integration of the audio chain and the other elements of the car HMI
with the e-Call TCU.
� The integration of the In-Vehicle electronic system (providing the crash
notification) with the e-Call TCU.
� The provisioning of the information and parameters necessary to activate and
execute the e-Call service at the car level.
For an e-Call equipped vehicle type examination, the following inspection and
test procedures shall be achieved:
� Examination of the technical file provided by the applicant car manufacturer.
This includes all elements related to risk management and data quality. This
technical file can be referring to the e-Call TCU type being certified, adding
information about its integration in the considered car type.
� e-Call transport protocol conformance testing including the complete,
integrated In-Vehicle e-Call chain.
� e-Call application protocol conformance testing including the complete,
integrated In-Vehicle e-Call chain.
� e-Call In-Vehicle performance conformance testing (e.g. Maximum time
necessary to issue a 112 call following a crash detection or a manual action,
and an MSD message following a 112 circuit switched establishment).
TCU
e-Call equipped
Vehicle
GPS Antenna
GPS
SIM
Power Supply
Processing
Unit
Complying
GSM Modem
GSM Antenna
Figure 3.2.1: e-Call equipped vehicle type
14
Vehicle
Interface
HMI
Interface
Integration of the e-Call TCU
With other elements.

GST – CERTECS European project Public Document delivered the 13th February 2006
Draft Proposal: Certification Procedures for the e-Call service
3.3 PSAP e-Call terminal type examination (Procedure module B)
At this level, the scope of the e-Call certification shall be clearly delimiting the
functions which are included in the certification (see the figure 3.3.1 below). For a
PSAP e-Call terminal type, the following minimum inspection and test procedures shall
be achieved:
� Examination of the technical file provided by the applicant PSAP. This
includes all elements related to risk management associated to the PSAP
terminal (reliability, dependability, security).
� e-Call transport protocol conformance testing such as specified at the PSAP
interface level.
� e-Call application protocol conformance testing (E112 establishment, MSD /
CANCEL reception, ACK transmission, EOS transmission).
� e-Call PSAP terminal performance conformance testing (e.g. Maximum time
to issue an ACK upon reception of an MSD).
The scope of the PSAP e-Call terminal type examination could be extended to the
PSAP operator HMI (ergonomics quality criteria including the received audio quality)
and to the data quality criteria related to the geographical MAP data quality and the
MAP matching quality (related to the GPS position accuracy).
Global
Network
Voice
Data
• Accident data
• Occupent data
PBX
Date & Time
• Vehicle’ data
PSAP Terminal
15
MAP
Data base
MAP Matching
Figure 3.3.1: Delimitation of the e-Call PSAP Terminal certification

GST – CERTECS European project Public Document delivered the 13th February 2006
Draft Proposal: Certification Procedures for the e-Call service
3.4 Global e-Call transport network type examination (Procedure module B)
The Global e-Call transport network type examination shall consider an
aggregation of networks including at least one GSM network (e-Call equipped
vehicle interface) and one terrestrial network (e-Call PSAP terminal interface). The
Global e-Call transport network shall be complying to its two interfaces
specifications (e-Call equipped vehicle and e-Call PSAP terminal) and other SLA
criteria. For a Global e-Call transport network type, the following minimum
inspection and test procedures shall be achieved:
� Examination of the technical file provided by the applicants MNO
(Mobile Network Operator) and TELCO. This includes all elements
related to risk management associated to the considered global network
(network coverage, availability, dependability, security).
� e-Call transport protocol conformance testing such as specified at the
PSAP interface level.
� e-Call transport protocol conformance testing such as specified at the e-
Call equipped vehicle interface.
� e-Call Transport conformance (adding the vehicle cell position to MSD)
and performance testing (e.g. Maximum time to establish an E112
switched circuit, Maximum time to transfer the MSD / CANCEL / ACK /
EOS messages once the E112 is established).
16

GST – CERTECS European project Public Document delivered the 13th February 2006
Draft Proposal: Certification Procedures for the e-Call service
3.5 End to End e-Call system type examination (Procedure module B)
The End to End e-Call system type examination shall consider the complete e-
Call chain integrating at least one type of each element here before considered (see
the figure 3.5.1 below). This step will allow to certify the full interoperability of the
global e-Call chain and will allow to assess the global risk of not achieving the e-
Call service as it is required in SLA.
PSAP e-Call
Terminal Type
Date & Time
• Vehicle’ data
• Accident data
• Occupent data
Global Data
Network Voice
PSAP Terminal
MAP
Data base
Global e-Call transport network Type
Figure 3.5.1: End to End e-Call system type
MAP Matching
End to End
e-Call System
Type
17
E-Call TCU Type
E-Call equipped
Vehicle Type
For an End to End e-Call system type, the following minimum inspection and
test procedures shall be achieved:
� Examination of the technical file provided by the applicants Car
Manufacturer / PSAP / Global Network Operator. This includes all
elements related to risk management associated to the End to End e-Call
system, building on examination of aggregated types.
� e-Call End to End application protocol conformance and interoperability
testing (establishment of the end to end voice circuit, transmission and
reception of the MSD /CANCEL messages, transmission and reception of
the ACK, transmission and reception of the EOS, closing of the voice
circuit).
� e-Call End to End performance conformance testing (e.g. Maximum time
to establish an E112 switched circuit, Round Trip Time Delay for the
transfer of MSD and receiving an ACK).

GST – CERTECS European project Public Document delivered the 13th February 2006
Draft Proposal: Certification Procedures for the e-Call service
3.6 e-Call TCU product conformity to type
Once e-Call TCU products are manufactured in series, the manufacturer has to
provide some evidence that such products are conforming to examined types. For
this purpose, the three following procedural modules can be required independently
according to some decision rules to be defined:
� Simple self declaration of conformity to type by the manufacturer:
In this case (procedure module C), none inspection or test procedure is
required. The manufacturer has just to issue a self declaration of
“conformity to type”.
� Manufacturing quality management audit: In this case (procedure
module D), the manufacturer has to provide a technical file
demonstrating that the product manufacturing process has the
capability to deliver products having the expected quality level. The
technical file will be inspected by an inspection body who will advise
the certification body to deliver or not the conformity to type
certificate.
� Product verification: In this case (procedure module F1), the
manufacturer has to provide some product samples to be tested for
verification of their conformity to type. The test laboratory in charge
of this verification will deliver its test report to the certification body
which will decide to deliver or not the conformity to type certificate.
Elements which could be considered to build the decision rules used to select the
e-Call TCU product conformity to type certification procedures are:
� Modification of the design or modification of the manufacturing
process of the e-Call TCU by its supplier.
� Operational, Quality, Interoperability problems reported by the OEM
/ e-Call equipped vehicle suppliers.
� ....etc.
18

GST – CERTECS European project Public Document delivered the 13th February 2006
Draft Proposal: Certification Procedures for the e-Call service
3.7 e-Call equipped vehicles product conformity to type
Once vehicle products are manufactured in series integrating e-Call systems or
are equipped in after sales with e-Call systems, the manufacturer / supplier has to
provide some evidence that such products are conforming to examined types. For
this purpose, the three following procedural modules can be required independently
according to some decision rules to be defined:
� Simple self declaration of conformity to type by the manufacturer
/ supplier: In this case (procedure module C), none inspection or test
procedure is required. The manufacturer / supplier has just to issue a
self declaration of “conformity to type”.
� Manufacturing quality management audit: In this case (procedure
module D), the manufacturer / supplier has to provide a technical file
demonstrating that the product manufacturing / installation process has
the capability to deliver products having the expected quality level.
Then the technical file will be inspected by an inspection body who
will advise the certification body to deliver or not the conformity to
type certificate.
� Product verification: In this case (procedure module F1), the
manufacturer / supplier has to provide some product samples to be
tested for verification of their conformity to type. The test laboratory
in charge of this verification will deliver its test report to the
certification body which will decide to deliver or not the conformity to
type certificate.
Elements which could be considered to build the decision rules used to select the
e-Call equipped vehicle product conformity to type certification procedures are:
� Modification of the integration / installation process of the e-Call
TCU in vehicles by the manufacturer / supplier.
� Modification of the e-Call TCU environment design by the e-Call
equipped vehicle manufacturer / supplier (e.g. antennas, audio
system, electronic system used for crash detection, ..etc.).
� Operational, Quality, Interoperability problems reported by end users
or other stakeholders of the value chain (e.g. PSAPs, TELCO).
� Operational, Quality, Interoperability problems detected during in
service / market survey.
� ....etc.
19

GST – CERTECS European project Public Document delivered the 13th February 2006
Draft Proposal: Certification Procedures for the e-Call service
3.8 PSAP e-Call terminal product conformity to type
Once PSAP e-Call terminal products are produced in series integrating e-Call
functions and protocols, the supplier has to provide some evidence that such
products are conforming to examined types. For this purpose, the three following
procedural modules can be required independently according to some decision rules
to be defined:
� Simple self declaration of conformity to type by the supplier: In
this case (procedure module C), none inspection or test procedure is
required. The supplier has just to issue a self declaration of
“conformity to type”.
� Manufacturing quality management audit: In this case (procedure
module D), the supplier has to provide a technical file demonstrating
that the product manufacturing / installation process has the capability
to deliver products having the expected quality level. Then the
technical file will be inspected by an inspection body who will advise
the certification body to deliver or not the conformity to type
certificate.
� Product verification: In this case (procedure module F1), the supplier
has to provide some product samples to be tested for verification of
their conformity to type. The test laboratory in charge of this
verification will deliver its test report to the certification body which
will decide to deliver or not the conformity to type certificate.
Elements which could be considered to build the decision rules used to select the
PSAP e-Call terminal product conformity to type certification procedures are:
� Modification of the PSAP e-Call terminal design (hardware or
software evolutions).
� Modification of the PSAP e-Call terminal installation / integration/
use at the PSAP level.
� Operational, Quality, Interoperability problems reported by end users
or other stakeholders of the value chain (e.g. OEM, e-Call equipped
Vehicles supplier, TELCO).
� Operational, Quality, Interoperability problems detected during in
service / market survey.
� ....etc.
20

GST – CERTECS European project Public Document delivered the 13th February 2006
Draft Proposal: Certification Procedures for the e-Call service
3.9 End to End e-Call system conformity to type
Once a complete end to end e-Call system type has been certified, this one can
be replicated in other European regions / nations without any modification of its
constituting elements. In such a case, for end to end e-Call system conformity to
type certification, the three following procedural modules can be required
independently according to some decision rules to be defined:
� Simple self declaration of conformity to type by the system supply
chain actors: In this case (procedure module C), none inspection or
test procedure is required. The supply chain actors have just to issue a
self declaration of “conformity to type”.
� System integration quality audit: In this case (procedure module D),
the supply chain actors have to provide a technical file demonstrating
that the system integration process has been achieved in such way to
obtain the expected operational level, interoperability and quality
level. Then the technical file will be inspected by an inspection body
who will advise the certification body to deliver or not the conformity
to type certificate.
� System verification: In this case (procedure module F1), the supply
chain actors have to give access to the installed system some the
achievement of verification tests needed to check the conformity to
type. The test laboratory in charge of this verification will deliver its
test report to the certification body which will decide to deliver or not
the conformity to type certificate.
Elements which could be considered to build the decision rules used to select the
end to end e-Call system conformity to type certification procedures are:
� Evolutions in the design, installation or use of the considered end to
end e-Call system in comparison to the certified end to end e-Call
system type.
� Operational, Quality, Interoperability problems reported by end users
or service operators of the end to end e-Call system.
� Differences in regional / national certification procedures.
� ....etc.
21

GST – CERTECS European project Public Document delivered the 13th February 2006
Draft Proposal: Certification Procedures for the e-Call service
3.10 In-service / market survey
In-service end to end e-Call systems shall be surveyed in order to quickly
identify significant deviations in term of operation, performances, quality of service.
Then, the system monitoring could consist to the execution of the following
procedures (included in procedure module F2):
� Monitor the performances of end to end e-Call systems according to
SLA requirements.
� Achieve at specified time intervals end to end e-Call system functional
and interoperability tests (for those elements which are not used for
long periods of time, typically the e-Call equipped vehicles).
� Reports at specified time intervals and on pre-defined events to the
certification body of significant deviations.
� Renewal of certificates of conformity to type at specified time intervals.
The detection of significant deviations of an operational certified system or
simply the detection of disturbances created by sub-systems being not certified will
lead to some corrective / penal procedures which have to be defined. In particular, the
detection of significant deviation may lead to strengthen the conformity to type
certification of some elements of the system or condition the certificate renewal of the
end to end system conformity to type until the recommended corrections have been
achieved.
22

GST – CERTECS European project Public Document delivered the 13th February 2006
Draft Proposal: Certification Procedures for the e-Call service
Annexes
– Abbreviations and Acronyms
� ACK : Acknowledgement
� ASN.1 : Abstract Syntax Notation One
� CB : Certification Body
� CERTECS : Certification of Telematics Components and Services
� EC : European Commission
� E.Call : Emergency Call
� EMC : Electro-Magnetic Compatibility
� EOS : End of Service
� GPS : Global Positioning System
� GST : Global System for Telematics
� IUT : Implementation Under Test
� MNO : Mobile Network Operator
� MSC : Message Sequence Chart
� MSD : Minimum Set of Data (part of E.Call)
� OEM : In this context “Car Manufacturer”
� PCO : Point of Test and Observation
� PICS : Protocol Implementation Conformance Statement
� PIN : Personal Identification Number
� PIXIT : Protocol Implementation eXtra Information for Testing
� POI : Point of Interest
� PSAP :Public Service Access Point
� QRI : Qualified Reference Implementation
� RI : Reference Implementation
� SLA : Service Level Agreement
� SLS : System Level Specification
� CA : Certification Authority
� IB : Inspection Body
� TCU : Telematics Control Unit
� TELCO : Telecom Operator
� TL : Test Laboratory
� TTCN-3 : Testing and Test Control Notation version 3
� UML : Unified Mark-up Language
� VIN : Vehicle Identification Number
23

Recommendations for the introduction of
the pan-European eCall
Appendix 14
Implementation status E112 and
eCall

Member State eCall MoU signature
Actual status of E112/eCall situation in the Member States
Implementation status
E112 eCall
Belgium Discussion between Ministries E112 introduced. Upgrading and
reorganisation of emergency centres
Czech Republic Procedure started E112 operational. Candidate for pilot
Denmark Procedure started E112 operational. Tests planned in 2006.
Germany Support to eCall. Lander delegated
into Federal Ministry. Signature
conditioned to solve data privacy and
subsidiarity issues
E112 introduced.
Estonia E112 introduced
Greece Signed
Spain Regional competence E112 operational in some regions. Position paper critical with eCall. PSAPs
Meeting in Madrid on 16 th March 06
France Discussion between Ministries E112 introduced in some areas. France
has some internal problems due to the
several overlapping organisations
working on emergency care at
regional/local level
Ireland Discussion between Ministries It has started studying the eCall
implementation
Italy Signed Upgrading emergency services (E112
Experimental trial foreseen in April 06).
Candidate for pilot.
DG INFSO G4. Last updated on 20/02/2006 Page 1 of 2

Member State eCall MoU signature
Actual status of E112/eCall situation in the Member States
Implementation status
E112 eCall
Cyprus Signed
Latvia E112 upgrading planned for 2007
Lithuania
Luxembourg
Signed Upgrading emergency centres
Hungary Procedure started Studying Upgrading emergency centres. eCall Expert meeting Budapest 23 rd
March 06. Candidate for pilot
Malta Discussion between Ministries Pull E112 operational. Starting eCall socio-economic study
considering Malta specificity
The Netherlands Procedure started Upgrading PSAPs. Implementation eCall requirements foreseen in the
foreseen on 2006
upgrading. Candidate for pilot
Austria E112 introduced
Poland E112 introduced
Portugal Discussion between Ministries E112 only for fixed lines
Slovenia Signed E112 operational
Slovakia E112 operational
Finland Signed E112 operational. eCall Testbed operational. Candidate for
pilot
Sweden Signed E112 operational. eCall trial foreseen for 2006. Candidate
for pilot
United Kingdom Subject to financial perspectives E112 operational. eCall Research on UK PSAPs
DG INFSO G4. Last updated on 20/02/2006 Page 2 of 2

Recommendations for the introduction of
the pan-European eCall
Appendix 15
Issues on Privacy by Jan Malenstein,
8 April 2005

E-call Driving Group,
Issues on Privacy.
1. Introduction. ................................................................................................................................................... 2
2. DIRECTIVE 95/46/EC. ................................................................................................................................. 2
2.1 Chapter I, general provisions, .................................................................................................................... 3
2.2 Chapter II, general rules on the lawfulness of the processing of personal data........................................ 5
2.2.1 Section I, principles relating to data quality............................................................................... 5
2.2.2. Section II, Criteria for making data processing legitimate. ..................................................... 5
2.2.3. Section III, Special Categories of Processing. ........................................................................... 6
2.2.4. Section IV, Information to be given to the data subject........................................................... 7
2.2.5. Section V, the data subject’s right of acces to data................................................................... 8
2.2.6. Section VI, Exemptions and restrictions..................................................................................... 8
2.2.7. Section VII, the data subject’s right to object............................................................................ 9
2.2.8. Section VIII, confidentiality and security of processing.......................................................... 9
2.2.9. Section IX, Notification. .............................................................................................................. 10
2.3 Chapter III, judicial remedies, liability and sanctions............................................................................. 11
2.3 Chapter IV, Transfer of Personal data to third countries. .......................................................................12
2.4 Chapter V, Codes of Conduct. ................................................................................................................. 12
2.5 Chapter VI, supervisory authority and working party.............................................................................12
2.6 Chapter VII, Community implementing measures.................................................................................. 13
3 National laws. ................................................................................................................................................... 14
4 Best approach. .................................................................................................................................................. 15
Author: Jan Malenstein.
Sr. Advisor ITS
KLPD.
Date : 8 April 2005.

1. Introduction.
Privacy still is considered to be a controversial issue, but is this really true? A number of years ago,
each Member state had its own privacy regulations and laws. This meant that it was hardly impossible
to exchange personal data across borders due to the many constraints and interpretations of Privacy.
Even now, it is still a subject that turns up at almost any project or EU initiative and it is still debated in
length.
This was recognised as a huge problem on which the Commission took action. The definite need to
harmonise the privacy concept in the EU member states led to:
DIRECTIVE 95/46/EC OF THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND OF THE COUNCIL of 24 October
1995 on the protection of individuals with regard to the processing of personal data and on the
free movement of such data.
This Directive had to become effective in September 1998 because it read inArticle 32 1: “Member
States shall bring into force the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to comply
with this Directive at the latest at the end of a period of three years from the date of its adoption”,
which was 24 October 1995. The Directive was published in the Official Journal of the European Union
on 23 November 1995, No L 281/31.
But this was delayed till September 2002, due to the fact that quite a number of Member States were
not able to transpose this Directive into national legislation, as was required by the Directive.
Finally, in September 2002, this EU Directive became effecive in the whole of the European Union, all
national laws on privacy either adjusted to be in line with the Directive or due to new lawgiving.
This instituted the basic principle that there can be no major differences in privacy legislation any more
in the EU; there may be little add-ons in national legislation, but the EU Directive cannot be restricted
by national lawgiving. This created a whole new situation, effectively a whole new ball game with a
new set of rules.
Next to this a number of other EU legislation was initiated on specific privacy issues:
1. Directive 2002/58/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 12 July 2002
concerning the processing of personal data and the protection of privacy in the electronic
communications sector (Directive on privacy and electronic communications)
2. Directive 97/66/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 15 December 1997
concerning the processing of personal data and the protection of privacy in the
telecommunications sector
3. Regulation (EC) 45/2001 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 18. December
2000 on the protection of individuals with regard to the processing of personal data by the
Community institutions and bodies and on the free movement of such data.
2. DIRECTIVE 95/46/EC.
OF THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND OF THE COUNCIL of 24 October 1995 on the
protection of individuals with regard to the processing of personal data and on the free
movement of such data.
There are two key elements in this directive:
1. The protection of individuals with regard to the processing of personal data.
2. The free movement of such data.
Especially the 2 nd element introduced a new key element that did hardly exist before. The exchange of
personal data across the border of the EU, even across the internal borders was a very complex
matter. Even in the area of crime fighting, the so-called Schengen Treaty, it was still a matter of
authorisation of only a few officers that were authorised to perform this.

The free movement of personal data was introduced for a number of reasons:
• The establishment and functioning of the internal market requires that goods, persons,
services and capital can flow freely across the borders, but also personal data related to that.
• The progress in information technology is making the processing and exchange of such data
considerably easier.
• The economic and social integration resulting from the internal market development will lead
to a substantial increase in cross-border flows of personal data between all involved in a private
or public capacity in economic and social activities, but also between undertakings in different
Member States.
• National authorities by virtue of Community law are obliged to collaborate and exchange
personal data as to be able to perform their duties and to carry out tasks on behalf of an
authority in another Member State.
• The increase in scientific and technical cooperatons and the coordinated introduction of new
telecommunications networks in the EC necessitate and facilitate cross-border flows of
personal data.
In the directive, it is implicitly stated that the right to privacy as laid down in Article 8 of the European
Convention for the protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms, is fully recognised and
maintained.
Moreover, of course, some excemptions are made as well:
• Activities regarding public safety, defence, State security or activities of the State in the area
of Criminal laws fall outside the scope of Community law do not fall within the scope of this
Directive.
2.1 Chapter I, general provisions,
Article 1 defines the scope of the Directive:
1. In accordance with this Directive, Member States shall protect the fundamental rights and
freedoms of natural persons, and in particular their riht to privacy with respect to the
processing of personal data.
2. Member States shall neither restrict nor prohibit the free flow of personal data between Memer
States for reasons connected with the protection afforded under paragraph 1.
Here’s the unambiguous obligation to procect the right on privacy of natural people, note that this
concerns natural people only.
But secondly, it is clearly stated that the free flow of personal data between Member States cannot be
restricted nor prohibited for the sake of this protection. This is important because this means that there
can be no reason to refuse the exchange of personal data, but one has to observe and comply to the
rules as will be explained onwards in this paper.
Article 2 lists a number of definitions:
a. “Personal data”. Any information relating to an identified or identifiable natural person
(the data subject). Idenfiable means once can be identified, directly or indirectly, in
particular by reference to an identification number or to one or more factors specific to this
physical, physiological, mental, economic, cultural or social identity.
b. “Processing of personal data”. Any operation or set of operations which is performed
upon personal data, whether or not by automatic means, such as collection, recording,
organization, storage, adaptation or alteration, retrieval, consultation, use, disclosure by
transmission, dissemination or otherwise making available, alignment or combination,
blocking, erasure or destruction.

c. “Personal data filing system”. Any structured set of personal data, which are accessible
according to specific criteria, whether centralized, decentralized or dispersed on a
functional or geographical basis.
d. “Controller”. The natural or legal person, public authority, agency or any other body
which alone or jointly with others, determines the purposes and means of the processing
of personal data; where the purposes and means of processing are determined by
national or Community laws or regulations, the controller or the specific criteria for his
nomination may be designated by national or Community law.
e. “Processor”. A natural or legal person, public authority, agency or any other body, which
processes personal data on behalf of the controller.
f. “Third party”. Any natural or legal person, public authority, agency or any other body
other than the data subject, the controller, the processor and the persons who, under the
direct authority of the controller or the processor, are authorized to process the data;
g. “Recipient”. A natural or legal person, public authority, agency or any other body to
whom data are disclosed, whether a third party or not; however, authorities which may
receive data in the framework of a particular inquiry shall not be regarded as recipients.
h. “Data subject consent”. Any freely given specific and informed indication of his wishes
by which the data subject signifies his agreement to personal data relating to him being
processed.
This set of definitions clearly marks the spot. The data have to refer to a natural person, the
processing and filing and the persons that are involved. Note the data subject consent, this is the part
that has to be asked to everybody from whom, for whatever reason, personal data are requested and
processed.
Article 3 defines the scope of and the excemptions from the Directive. Here it becomes clear that the
processing has to be performed wholly or partly by automatic means but also otherwise if these
personal data will form a part of a filing system or are intended to form part of a filing system.
The second paragraph of art. 3 excludes the following from the Directive:
1. Activities that fall outside the scope of Community law, as provided in Titles V and VI off
the Treaty on the European Union. These titles concern provisions on a common foreign
and security policy (Title V) and provisions on cooperation in the fields of justice and home
affaris (Title VI). The latter Title had been shaped and defined in the Schengen Treaty on
judicial cooperation between the Member States.
2. In any case to processing operations concerning public security, defence, State security
(including the economic well-being of the Stae when the processing operations relates to
State security matters) and the activities of the State in areas of criminal law (taken care off
by Schengen).
3. The processing of personal data in the course of a purely personal or household activity.
This last one will reassure you all; your data in your PDA are not subjected to the Directive if this is for
personal or household use only.
Article 4 defines the cases where national law, according to the Directive, is applicable and should
hold provisions accordingly:
a. The processing is carried out in the context of the activities of an establishment of the
controller on the territory of the Member State; when the same controller is established on
the territory of several Member States, he must take the necessary measures to ensure
that each of these establishments complies with the obligations laid down by the national
law applicable.
b. The controller is not established on the Member State's territory, but in a place where its
national law applies by virtue of international public law. This applies for instance in
embassies or aboard ships and planes.

c. The controller is not established on Community territory and, for purposes of processing
personal data makes use of equipment, automated or otherwise, situated on the territory
of the said Member State, unless such equipment is used only for purposes of transit
through the territory of the Community.
In the latter case (c), the controller has to appoint then a representative established in the
territory of the Member State, without prejudic to legal actions that could be initiated against
the controller himself.
This article holds important items for controllers that are operational in several Member
States. As said in the introduction, there can be no major differences in privacy legislation any
more in the EU; the EU Directive cannot be restricted by national lawgiving but there may be little addons
in national legislation and those have to be taken into account fully for each Member State. The
housework here is to list all these differing details and to comply with them.
2.2 Chapter II, general rules on the lawfulness of the processing
of personal data.
Article 5 is the obligation for the Member States to determine more precisely the conditions under
which the processing of personal data is lawful, but within the limits of the provisions in this chapter of
the EU Directive.
The condtions are not specified in detail in the EU Directive but is left to the Member States to define.
The principles of article 6 of the EU Directive have to be obeyed though.
Note that this leaves ample room for specific details to be filled in by the Member States as long as it
remains in accordance with the EU Directive. This is however a complicating factor for international
operating entrerprises, see article 4 (c) hereabove.
2.2.1 Section I, principles relating to data quality.
Article 6 lists a number of principles concerning data quality.
Member States shall provide that personal data must be:
a. Processed fairly and lawfully;
b. Collected for specified, explicit and legitimate purposes and not further processed in a way
incompatible with those purposes. Further processing of data for historical, statistical or
scientific purposes shall not be considered as incompatible provided that Member States
provide appropriate safeguards;
c. Adequate, relevant and not excessive in relation to the purposes for which they are
collected and/or further processed;
d. Accurate and, where necessary, kept up to date; every reasonable step must be taken to
ensure that data which are inaccurate or incomplete, having regard to the purposes for
which they were collected or for which they are further processed, are erased or rectified;
e. Kept in a form which permits identification of data subjects for no longer than is necessary
for the purposes for which the data were collected or for which they are further processed.
Member States shall lay down appropriate safeguards for personal data stored for longer
periods for historical, statistical or scientific use.
The controller is responsible that this is complied with.
2.2.2. Section II, Criteria for making data processing legitimate.
Article 7 lists a number of criteria for the legitimacy of personal data processing:
Member States shall provide that personal data may be processed only if:

a. The data subject has unambiguously given his consent; or
b. Processing is necessary for the performance of a contract to which the data subject is
party or in order to take steps at the request of the data subject prior to entering into a
contract; or
c. Processing is necessary for compliance with a legal obligation to which the controller is
subject; or
d. Processing is necessary in order to protect the vital interests of the data subject; or
e. Processing is necessary for the performance of a task carried out in the public interest or
in the exercise of official authority vested in the controller or in a third party to whom the
data are disclosed; or
f. Processing is necessary for the purposes of the legitimate interests pursued by the
controller or by the third party or parties to whom the data are disclosed, except where
such interests are overridden by the interests for fundamental rights and freedoms of the
data subject, which require protection under Article 1 (1).
2.2.3. Section III, Special Categories of Processing.
Article 8 defines special categories of processing.
This is an important article because here it is exactly listed what data are forbidden to be processed.
These are the data that reveal or concern:
• Racial or ethnic origin.
• Political opinion.
• Religious or philosophical beliefs.
• Trade-union membership (still a very sensitive item in many countries!).
• Health or sex life.
And, of course, paragraph (2 - 3) of this article sums up the exceptions:
a. If the data subject has given his or her explicit consent to process these data. This does
not apply however if the laws of the applicable Member State provide that this prohibition
may not be lifted by the data subject’s consent.
b. If processing is necessary for the purposes of carrying out the obligations and specific
rights of the controller in the field of employment law in so far as it is authorized by
national law providing for adequate safeguards; or
c. Processing is necessary to protect the vital interests of the data subject or of another
person where the data subject is physically or legally incapable of giving his consent; or
d. Processing is carried out in the course of its legitimate activities with appropriate
guarantees by a foundation, association or any other non-profitseeking body with a
political, philosophical, religious or trade-union aim and on condition that the processing
relates solely to the members of the body or to persons who have regular contact with it in
connection with its purposes and that the data are not disclosed to a third party without the
consent of the data subjects; or
e. The processing relates to data, which are manifestly made public by the data subject, or is
necessary for the establishment, exercise or defence of legal claims.
f. Processing of the data is required for the purposes of preventive medicine, medical
diagnosis, the provision of care or treatment or the management of health-care services,
and where those data are processed by a health professional subject under national law
or rules established by national competent bodies to the obligation of professional secrecy
or by another person also subject to an equivalent obligation of secrecy.
Paragraph (4) provides the possiblity for the Member States, for reasons of substantial public interest,
and subjected to theprovision of suitable safeguards, to lay down exemptions in addition to those laid
down in paragraph 2 either by national law or by decision of the supervisory authority.
This is not further defined in the EU Directive but is left to the discretion of the Member States.

Paragraph (5) is about the processing of data relating to offences, criminal convictions or security
measures. These may be carried out only:
a. Under the control of official authority,
b. Or subject to derogations which may be granted by the Member State under national
provisions providing suitable specific safeguards under national law
However, a complete register of criminal convictions may be kept only under the control of official
authority. Member States may provide that data relating to administrative sanctions or judgements in
civil cases shall also be processed under the control of official authority.
Paragraph 6 holds the obligaton to notify the Commission on the derogations from paragraph 1
provided for in paragraphs 4 and 5.
Paragraph 7 obliges the Member States to determine the conditions under which a national
identification number or any other identifier of general application may be processed.
Article 9 holds another important excemption: the processing of personal data solely carried out for
journalistic purposes or for the purpose of artistic or literary expression, only if they are necessary to
reconcile the right to privacy with the rules governing the freedom of expression.
2.2.4. Section IV, Information to be given to the data subject.
Article 10 is about the information, to be given to the data subject. Member States shall provide that
the controller or his representative must provide a data subject from whom data relating to himself are
collected with at least the following information, except where he already has it:
a The identity of the controller and of his representative, if any;
b The purposes of the processing for which the data are intended;
c Any further information such as:
• - The recipients or categories of recipients of the data,
• - Whether replies to the questions are obligatory or voluntary, as well as the
possible consequences of failure to reply,
• - The existence of the right of access to and the right to rectify the data concerning
him in so far as such further information is necessary, having regard to the specific
circumstances in which the data are collected, to guarantee fair processing in
respect of the data subject.
Article 11 deals with the provision of information in a situation where the data have not been
obtained from the data subject.
Paragraph 1. Where the data have not been obtained from the data subject, Member States shall
provide that the controller or his representative must at the time of undertaking the recording of
personal data or if a disclosure to a third party is envisaged, no later than the time when the data are
first disclosed provide the data subject with at least the following information, except where he already
has it:
a The identity of the controller and of his representative, if any;
b The purposes of the processing;
c Any further information such as
• - The categories of data concerned,
• - The recipients or categories of recipients, - the existence of the right of access to
and the right to rectify the data concerning him in so far as such further information
is necessary, having regard to the specific circumstances in which the data are
processed, to guarantee fair processing in respect of the data subject.
Paragraph 2 is again an excemption to paragraph 1. The obligation to provide information to the data
subject is not applicable if the provision of such information proves impossible of would involve a
disproportionate effort or if recording or disclosure is expressly laid down by law. In these cases
Member States shall provide appropriate safeguards. This applies particularly for statistical purposes
of for the purposes of historical or scientific research.

2.2.5. Section V, the data subject’s right of acces to data.
Article 12 deals with the right of access.
Member States shall guarantee every data subject the right to obtain from the controller:
a Without constraint at reasonable intervals and without excessive delay or expense:
• - Confirmation as to whether or not data relating to him are being processed and
information at least as to the purposes of the processing, the categories of data
concerned, and the recipients or categories of recipients to whom the data are
disclosed,
• - communication to him in an intelligible form of the data undergoing processing
and of any available information as to their source,
• - knowledge of the logic involved in any automatic processing of data concerning
him at least in the case of the automated decisions referred to in Article 15 (1);
b as appropriate the rectification, erasure or blocking of data the processing of which does not
comply with the provisions of this Directive, in particular because of the incomplete or
inaccurate nature of the data;
c notification to third parties to whom the data have been disclosed of any rectification, erasure
or blocking carried out in compliance with (b), unless this proves impossible or involves a
disproportionate effort.
2.2.6. Section VI, Exemptions and restrictions.
Article 13 grants Member States the possibility to adopt legislative measures to restrict the scope of
the obligations and rights provided for in Articles 6 (1), 10, 11 (1), 12 and 21 when such a restriction
constitutes necessary measures to safeguard:
a National security;
b Defence;
c Public security;
d The prevention, investigation, detection and prosecution of criminal offences, or of breaches of
ethics for regulated professions;
e An important economic or financial interest of a Member State or of the European Union,
including monetary, budgetary and taxation matters;
f A monitoring, inspection or regulatory function connected, even occasionally, with the exercise
of official authority in cases referred to in (c), (d) and (e);
g The protection of the data subject or of the rights and freedoms of others.
Paragraph 2 allows Member States to restrict the application of the right of access by means of a
legislative measure when data are processed solely for purposes of scientific research or are kept in
personal form for a period which does not exceed the period necessary for the sole purpose of
creating statistics. There is the obligation however to provide adequate legal safeguards, in particular
that the data are not used for taking measures or decisions regarding any particular individual.

2.2.7. Section VII, the data subject’s right to object.
Article 14 institutes the right of the data object to object:
a At least in the cases referred to in Article 7 (e) and (f) (public interest, official authority
invested in the controller or in a third party to whom the data are disclosed, necessary
for legitimte interests), to object at any time on compelling legitimate grounds relating to his
particular situation to the processing of data relating to him, save where otherwise provided by
national legislation. Where there is a justified objection, the processing instigated by the
controller may no longer involve those data;
b To object, on request and free of charge, to the processing of personal data relating to him
which the controller anticipates being processed for the purposes of direct marketing, or to be
informed before personal data are disclosed for the first time to third parties or used on their
behalf for the purposes of direct marketing, and to be expressly offered the right to object free
of charge to such disclosures or uses.
Member States shall take the necessary measures to ensure that data subjects are aware of the
existence of the right referred to in the first subparagraph of (b).
Article 15 concerns automated individual decisions and the right of data subjects:
1. Member States shall grant the right to every person not to be subject to a decision which
produces legal effects concerning him or significantly affects him and which is based solely
on automated processing of data intended to evaluate certain personal aspects relating to
him, such as his performance at work, creditworthiness, reliability, conduct, etc.
2. Subject to the other Articles of this Directive, Member States shall provide that a person may
be subjected to a decision of the kind referred to in paragraph 1 if that decision:
o Is taken in the course of the entering into or performance of a contract, provided the
request for the entering into or the performance of the contract, lodged by the data
subject, has been satisfied or that there are suitable measures to safeguard his
legitimate interests, such as arrangements allowing him to put his point of view; or
o Is authorized by a law, which also lays down measures to safeguard the data subject's
legitimate interests.
2.2.8. Section VIII, confidentiality and security of processing.
Article 16 says that any person acting under the authority of the controller or of the processor,
including the processor himself, who has access to personal data must not process them except on
instructions from the controller, unless he is required to do so by
law.
This is an interesting article, it says that any operator only is allowed to process personal data
according to his jobdescription or by the law. He cannot initiate any processing himself.
Article 17 concerns the security of processing.
1. Member States shall provide that the controller must implement appropriate technical and
organizational measures to protect personal data against accidental or unlawful destruction or
accidental loss, alteration, unauthorized disclosure or access, in particular where the processing
involves the transmission of data over a network, and against all other unlawful forms of
processing. Having regard to the state of the art and the cost of their implementation, such
measures shall ensure a level of security appropriate to the risks represented by the processing
and the nature of the data to be protected.
2. The Member States shall provide that the controller must, where processing is carried out on his
behalf, choose a processor providing sufficient guarantees in respect of the technical security
measures and organizational measures governing the processing to be carried out, and must
ensure compliance with those measures.

3. The carrying out of processing by way of a processor must be governed by a contract or legal
act binding the processor to the controller and stipulating in particular that:
a. - The processor shall act only on instructions from the controller,
b. - The obligations set out in paragraph 1, as defined by the law of the Member State in
which the processor is established, shall also be incumbent on the processor.
4. For the purposes of keeping proof, the parts of the contract or the legal act relating to data
protection and the requirements relating to the measures referred to in paragraph 1 shall be in
writing or in another equivalent form.
2.2.9. Section IX, Notification.
Article 18 is about the obligation to notify the surpervisory authority.
This article contains a number of obligations:
1. The controller or his representative has to notify the surpervisory authority (art 28)
before the processing of personal data is carried out.
2. This may, again, be simplified of exempted in certain cases and following some
conditions:
a. Where for categories of processing operations which are unlikely to affect
adversely the rights and freedoms of data subjects, is specified:
i. Purposes of processing.
ii. Data or categories of data undergoing processing.
iii. Category or categories of data subject,
iv. Recipients or categories of recipients to whom data are to be
disclosed.
v. Length of time that data are to be stored.
b. Where, in compliance with the national law, the controllor appoints a personal
dat protection official, responsible for:
i. Ensuring in an independent manner the internal application of the
national provisions.
ii. Keeping the register of processing operations carried out by the controller,
containing the items of information referred to in Article 21 (2), (the register
of processing operations), thereby ensuring that the rights and freedoms of
the data subjects are unlikely to be adversely affected by the processing
operations.
3. Member States may provide that paragraph 1 does not apply to processing whose sole
purpose is the keeping of a register which according to laws or regulations is intended to
provide information to the public and which is open to consultation either by the public in
general or by any person demonstrating a legitimate interest.
4. Member States may provide for an exemption from the obligation to notify or a simplification of
the notification in the case of processing operations referred to in Article 8 (2) (d)
(foundations etc. with a political, philosphical, religious or trade-union aim).
5. Member States may stipulate that certain or all non-automatic processing operations involving
personal data shall be notified, or provide for these processing operations to be subject to
simplified notification.
Article 19 is about the Contents of notification. It says that:
1. Member States shall specify the information to be given in the notification. It shall include at
least:
a. The name and address of the controller and of his representative, if any;
b. The purpose or purposes of the processing;
a. A description of the category or categories of data subject and of the data or
categories of data relating to them;
b. The recipients or categories of recipient to whom the data might be disclosed;
c. Proposed transfers of data to third countries;

d. A general description allowing a preliminary assessment to be made of the
appropriateness of the measures taken pursuant to Article 17 to ensure security of
processing.
2. Member States shall specify the procedures under which any change affecting the information
referred to in paragraph 1 must be notified to the supervisory authority.
Article 20 is abot prior checking.
1. Member States shall determine the processing operations likely to present specific risks to the
rights and freedoms of data subjects and shall check that these processing operations are
examined prior to the start thereof.
2. Such prior checks shall be carried out by the supervisory authority following receipt of a
notification from the controller or by the data protection official, who, in cases of doubt, must
consult the supervisory authority.
3. Member States may also carry out such checks in the context of preparation either of a
measure of the national parliament or of a measure based on such a legislative measure,
which define the nature of the processing and lay down appropriate safeguards.
Article 21 sets rules for the publishing of processing operations.
1. Member States shall take measures to ensure that processing operations are publicized.
2. Member States shall provide that a register of processing operations notified in accordance
with Article 18 (obligation to notify) shall be kept by the supervisory authority. The register
shall contain at least the information listed in Article 19 (1) (a) to (e). The register may be
inspected by any person.
3. Member States shall provide, in relation to processing operations not subject to notification,
that controllers or another body appointed by the Member States make available at least the
information referred to in Article 19 (1) (a) to (e) in an appropriate form to any person on
request. Member States may provide that this provision does not apply to processing whose
sole purpose is the keeping of a register, which according to laws or regulations is intended to
provide information to the public, and which is open to consultation either by the public in
general or by any person who can provide proof of a legitimate interest.
2.3 Chapter III, judicial remedies, liability and sanctions.
Article 22, Without prejudice to any administrative remedy for which provision may be made, inter alia
before the supervisory authority referred to in Article 28, prior to referral to the judicial authority,
Member States shall provide for the right of every person to a judicial remedy for any breach of the
rights guaranteed him by the national law applicable to the processing in question.
Article 23, Member States shall provide that any person who has suffered damage as a result of an
unlawful processing operation or of any act incompatible with the national provisions adopted pursuant
to this Directive is entitled to receive compensation from the controller for the damage suffered.
The controller may be exempted from this liability, in whole or in part, if he proves that he is not
responsible for the event giving rise to the damage.
Article 24, The Member States shall adopt suitable measures to ensure the full implementation of the
provisions of this Directive and shall in particular lay down the sanctions to be imposed in case of
infringement of the provisions adopted pusuant to htis Directive.
The highth of the sanction is not specified in the EU Directive, that has been left to the Member states
to define. For example, the Dutch privacy law institutes administrative sanctions and a maximum fine
of 4500 euro.

2.3 Chapter IV, Transfer of Personal data to third countries.
Article 25 lays down the principles for the transfer of personal data to third countries.
1. The third county has to ensure an adequate level of protection.
2. This adequacy shall be assessed with particular consideration to:
a. The nature of the data
b. The purpose and duration of the proposed processing operation(s).
c. Country of origin and country of final destination.
d. Rules of the the law in the third country
e. Security measures to be complied to in the third country.
3. Member States and the Commission shall inform each other on cases where third countries
do not ensure such an adequate level of protection.
4. If so, Member States shall take the measures to prevent any transfer of data.
5. The Commission shall at an appropriate time enter negotiations with such a country to remedy
the situation.
6. The Commission may find that a third country has an adequate level of protection as a result
from the procedure described in article 32 of the EU Directive.
Article 26 lists a numbe of derogations.
Again, a number of derogations from article 25 are listed:
1. Transfer of data to a 3 rd country may take place if:
a. The data subject has given his unambigious consent.
b. To perform and carry out according to a contract between the data subject and the
controller.
c. The transfer is necessary or legally required based on grounds of public interest or
legal claims.
d. The transfer is necessary in order to protect the vital interests of the data subject.
e. Transfer is made from a register, intended to provide information to the public and can
be consulted by the public or by a person who can demonstrate a legal interest.
2. Authorised by a Member State if the controller adduces adequate safeguards with respect to
the protection of the privacy and fundamental rights and freedoms of individuals.
3. The Member State shall inform the Commission and other Member States of authorisations
granted from paragraph 2.
4. If the Commission decides that proper safeguard is provided, the Member States shall take
the necessary measures to comply with the Commission decision.
2.4 Chapter V, Codes of Conduct.
Only one article here, article 27 lists a number of provisions for a code of Conduct, encouraged by
Member States and the Commission. It is very generic. It is encouraged, not obliged, to draw up a
code of conduct to contribute to the proper implementation of national provisions, pusuant from the EU
Directive.
2.5 Chapter VI, supervisory authority and working party
on the protection of individuals with regards to the processing of personal data.
Two items here are regarded: a supervisory authority and a working party.
Article 28 is about the supervision and lists the requrements for a supervisory authority:
1. Each Member State shall provide that one or more public authorities are responsible for
monitoring the application within its territory of the provisions adopted by the Member States
pursuant to this Directive. These authorities shall act with complete independence in
exercising the functions entrusted to them.

2. Each Member State shall provide that the supervisory authorities are consulted when
drawing up administrative measures or regulations relating to the protection of individuals'
rights and freedoms with regard to the processing of personal data.
3. Each authority shall in particular be endowed with:
a. Investigative powers, such as powers of access to data forming the subjectmatter of
processing operations and powers to collect all the information necessary for the
performance of its supervisory duties,
b. Effective powers of intervention, such as, for example, that of delivering opinions
before processing operations are carried out, in accordance with Article 20, and
ensuring appropriate publication of such opinions, of ordering the blocking, erasure or
destruction of data, of imposing a temporary or definitive ban on processing, of arning
or admonishing the controller, or that of referring the matter to national parliaments or
other political institutions.
c. The power to engage in legal proceedings where the national provisions adopted
pursuant to this Directive have been violated or to bring these violations to the
attention of the judicial authorities. Decisions by the supervisory authority, which give
rise to complaints, may be appealed against through the courts.
4. Each supervisory authority shall hear claims lodged by any person, or by an association
representing that person, concerning the protection of his rights and freedoms in regard to the
processing of personal data. The person concerned shall be informed of the outcome of the
claim. Each supervisory authority shall, in particular, hear claims for checks on the lawfulness
of data processing lodged by any person when the national provisions adopted pursuant to
Article 13 of this Directive apply. The person shall at any rate be informed that a check has
taken place.
5. Each supervisory authority shall draw up a report on its activities at regular intervals. The
report shall be made public.
6. Each supervisory authority is competent, whatever the national law applicable to the
processing in question, to exercise, on the territory of its own Member State, the powers
conferred on it in accordance with paragraph 3. Each authority may be requested to exercise
its powers by an authority of another Member State. The supervisory authorities shall
cooperate with one another to the extent necessary for the performance of their duties, in
particular by exchanging all useful information.
7. Member States shall provide that the members and staff of the supervisory authority, even
after their employment has ended, are to be subject to a duty of professional secrecy with
regard to confidential information to which they have access.
Article 29 institutes a so-called Working Party. This working party will operate on the EU level only.
There is no need for a working party in each Member State.The Working party shall consist of
representatives from the supervisory authorities of the Member States and Commission bodies and
institutions. Article 30 lists the duties of the Working Party. Not explained in more detail here.
2.6 Chapter VII, Community implementing measures.
Here the usual institution of a Committee is described in Article 31, what its duties are and how it shall
interact with the Commission. Not explained in more detail here.
Article 32 lists the final provisions:
1. Member States shall bring into force the laws, regulations and administrative provisions
necessary to comply with this Directive at the latest at the end of a period of three years from
the date of its adoption. When Member States adopt these measures, they shall contain a
reference to this Directive or be accompanied by such reference on the occasion of their
official publication. The methods of making such reference shall be laid down by the Member
States.
2. Member States shall ensure that processing already under way on the date the national
provisions adopted pursuant to this Directive enter into force, is brought into conformity with
these provisions within three years of this date. By way of derogation from the preceding
subparagraph, Member States may provide that the processing of data already held in manual

filing systems on the date of entry into force of the national provisions adopted in
implementation of this Directive shall be brought into conformity with Articles 6, 7 and 8 of this
Directive within 12 years of the date on which it is adopted. Member States shall, however,
grant the data subject the right to obtain, at his request and in particular at the time of
exercising his right of access, the rectification, erasure or blocking of data which are
incomplete, inaccurate or stored in a way incompatible with the legitimate purposes pursued
by the controller.
3. By way of derogation from paragraph 2, Member States may provide, subject to suitable
safeguards, that data kept for the sole purpose of historical research need not be brought into
conformity with Articles 6, 7 and 8 of this Directive.
4. 4. Member States shall communicate to the Commission the text of the provisions of domestic
law, which they adopt in the field covered by this Directive.
Article 33 is on the usual feedback to the EU parliament. Not explained in furhter detail here.
3 National laws.
In article 32 is is stated that the Member States shall bring into force the laws, regulations and
administrative provisions necessary to comply with this Directive at the latest at the end of a period of
three years from the date of its adoption.
When Member States adopt these measures, they shall contain a reference to this Directive or be
accompanied by such reference on the occasion of their official publication.
The Member States shall lay down the methods of making such reference.
The reference usually looks like this (Dutch example):
“Whereas it is necessary to implement Directive 95/46/EC of the European Parliament and of
the Council of the European Union of 23 November 1995 on the protection of individuals with
regard to the processing of personal data and on the free movement of that data (OJ L 28 1); etc etc”
As said in the introduction, this Directive had to become effective in September 1998.
But this was delayed till September 2002, due to the fact that quite a number of Member States were
not able to transpose this Directive into national legislation, as was required by the Directive.
Finally, in September 2002, this EU Directive became effecive in the whole of the European Union, all
national laws on privacy either adjusted to be in line with the Directive or due to new lawgiving.
In the Directive, a lot of issues are left to deal with by the Member States themselves, due to the
subsidiarity principle:
• Purposes and means of processing are determined by national or Community laws or
regulations (art. 2).
• The obligation for the Member States to determine more precisely the conditions under which
the processing of personal data is lawful, but within the limits of the provisions in this chapter of
the EU Directive (art. 5). This is a key issue as this is not defined exactly by the EU directive.
• Member States shall lay down appropriate safeguards for personal data stored for longer
periods for historical, statistical or scientific use (art. 6 (e)).
• the possiblity for the Member States, for reasons of substantial public interest, and subjected
to theprovision of suitable safeguards, to lay down exemptions in addition to those laid down in
paragraph 2 (art 8) either by national law or by decision of the supervisory authority (art 8 par
4).
• Member States may provide that data relating to administrative sanctions or judgements in
civil cases shall also be processed under the control of official authority (art 8 par 5).
• Obligation to the Member States to determine the conditions under which a national
identification number or any other identifier of general application may be processed (art 8 par
7).
• Granting Member States the possibility to adopt legislative measures to restrict the scope of
the obligations and rights provided for etc etc (art 13 par 1).

• Allowing Member States to restrict the application of the right of access by means of a
legislative measure when data are processed solely for purposes of scientific research or are
kept in personal form for a period, which does not exceed the period necessary for the sole
purpose of creating statistics (art 13 par 2).
• Provision that paragraph 1 does not apply to processing whose sole purpose is the keeping of
a register which according to laws or regulations is intended to provide information to the public
and which is open to consultation either by the public in general or by any person
demonstrating a legitimate interest (art 18 par 3).
• Provision for an exemption from the obligation to notify or a simplification of the notification in
the case of processing operations referred to in Article 8 (2) (d) (foundations etc. with a
political, philosphical, religious or trade-union aim) (art 18 par 4).
• Stipulation that certain or all non-automatic processing operations involving personal data
shall be notified, or provide for these processing operations to be subject to simplified
notification (art 18 par 5).
• To determine the processing operations likely to present specific risks to the rights and
freedoms of data subjects and shall check that these processing operations are examined prior
to the start thereof (art 20 par 1.
• The obligation to adopt suitable measures to ensure the full implementation of the provisions
of this Directive and shall in particular lay down the sanctions to be imposed in case of
infringement of the provisions adopted pusuant to htis Directive (art 24).
• The provision, subject to suitable safeguards, that data kept for the sole purpose of historical
research need not be brought into conformity with Articles 6, 7 and 8 of this Directive (art 32
par 3).
Effectively, quite a number of issues are left to the Member States. For this reason, national lawgiving
on privacy according to this EU Directive is much more substantial than the EU Directive itself which
can be regarded as a Framework.
4 Best approach.
The details may differ from Member to Member States, but a basical, common approach can be
applied.
Starting with the EU Directive, the general framework can be set up. Attention has to be paid to the
question “who is the controller?” and the other definitions.
The framework has to address:
1. Principles relating to data quality.
2. Criteria for making data processing legitimate.
3. Special categories of processing.
4. Information to be given to the data subject.
5. The data subject’s right of access to data.
6. The data subject’s right to object.
7. Exemptions and restrictions.
8. Confidentiality and security of processing.
9. Notification.
Appointing official representatives and the personal data protection officer (art. 18 par 2 sub (b)) are
first things to do. Take good notice of art 8, the “sensitive” data and stay away from that.
According to the provisions of the EU Directive, one has to describe the goal and purpose of the
collecting and processing of personal data and all the related procedures.
A matrix of what exactly has to be covered would be helpful; also a matrix of the exemptions. It will be
useful to use matrixes in which the EU Directive is postioned next to the national legislation to
guarantee that nothing is missed.
The matrix identifiers can be according the general principles, listed hereabove.

The controller has to identify who the public authority is. This is the authority to which one has to
submit all the necessary details. In general, this authority may be consulted on beforehand as well to
ensure that the correct procedure is followed. In the Dutch situation, this has proved to be very helpful.
This authority can be consulted during operation as well. A good relationship with the public authoritiy
on privacy can be beneficial. This is an issue to be observed when a personal data protection officers
is appointed.
The controller has to verify that all rights of the data subjecs are respected and that provisions are
documented on how to deal with those rights and how to inform the data subject.
Special attention needs to be paid to cross border exchange of personal data. When a controller is
established in several member states, he has to comply with each law in each member state, which
may lead to the definition of different procedures and obligations, depending on each member state
individually. Next to that, the controller has to observe the rules to the transfer of personal data to third
countries as well.
The last issue to observe is to monitor changes in legislation and to apply and include these as soon
as possible in the processing of personal data.

Recommendations for the introduction of
the pan-European eCall
Appendix 16
Results from the different studies on
business case

Clarification Paper – BC 1
Overview of available studies on
proven or assessed benefits of e-Call
27 august 2005
Author(s)
Y. Bouler
Renault SAS

Table of content
CHAPTER 1 - INTRODUCTION 1
1.1 OBJECTIVES 1
1.2 STAKEHOLDERS CONCERNED 1
CHAPTER 2 -
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 2
CHAPTER 3 - SECTOR DESCRIPTION 3
3.1 INTRODUCTION 3
3.2 OPEN ISSUES 5
CHAPTER 4 -
CONCLUSION 6
CHAPTER 5 - REFERENCES 7

Chapter 1 - Introduction
1.1 Objectives
Clarification Paper – sub-working group
In order to assess and secure the socio-economic benefits of European e-Call, it is necessary to
collect, compare and combine existing studies and test results.
These proven figures and acceptable assumptions shall support the business case analysis, and
allow further discussions on how the stakeholders can balance efforts and benefits for a
common willingness to roll out this program.
These figures shall also help to determine how the expected benefits are distributed between
public and private sectors.
1.2 Stakeholders concerned
Benefits of e-Call are mostly demonstrated in reducing
• the medical consequences of a crash,
• the risk of further accidents on the scene,
• the impact of an accident on traffic,
and in improving the emergency operations (better information on the context, p/e airbag
deployment information).
Most concerned stakeholders are then public actors (health, emergency, road and security
sectors), and in a lesser extend private insurances and road/bridges infrastructures operators.
On the other end, it is obvious that customers / citizens will get benefits from EC e-Call roll
out, but so far most if not all the existing attempts to sell such services turned in very limited
success.
One can assume that raising customer awareness on personal benefits (own and family security)
may prove a positive communication and raise political and involved industries image, by
showing high level commitment to customer security. But willingness to pay shall keep low, as
rescue is seen as a public duty. Then all ECDG group consider first step of e-Call as a citizen
security approach.
Last all involved industries shall be concerned to confirm that expected and demonstrated
benefits balance the roll-out costs, and that those who shall invest in equipping the vehicles,
carrying the calls and upgrading the rescue chain, will get compensations from those who get
benefits from this effort, and later from potential commercial services (to be confirmed by
market pull).
31/03/2006 1 Version 1.0

Chapter 2 - Executive summary
Clarification Paper – sub-working group
e-Call, as defined by e-Safety and ECDG work group, has a clear positive impact in reducing
the consequences of road accidents when they cannot be avoided, including the opportunity to
warn surrounding vehicles faster, avoiding then further accidents.
e-Call shall also improve rescue efficiency (then reducing rescue cost per accident) and reduce
consequences on traffic by a faster information for surrounding vehicles.
From all relevant studies and field test so far, we can assume that:
• Golden Hour concept is a universal and well known concept in rescue: survival rate and
long term consequences of injuries are reduced for each minute gained to reach the
scene. 80 % of injured people with serious trauma die within one hour if no adequate
medical treatment. There is no discussion on this concept.
• Automatic alert and precise location will reduce by an average 10 minutes the rescue
time in rural area (50% gain over existing alert), and by 3 to 4 minutes in urban
accidents (40% gain). Knowing that most critical accidents occur by night in rural
areas, e-call benefit in reducing rescue time is expected in the high of the bracket.
This varies from country to country, but all studies (EC and US) raised the conclusion
that e-Call has a direct socio-economic impact:
• 3 to 15 % of fatalities should be avoided (large bracket due to country related context,
as current rescue efficiency, road and population distribution…)
• Up to 15% of serious injuries shall be avoided to slightly injuries (large bracket as well,
then shall be further confirmed on country per country basis).
Last but not least, all studies demonstrated that benefit to cost ratio should be between 1.3
and 8.5, without taking into account side benefits as better related traffic management, and
rescue productivity rising.
Public sector will get most of this benefit, then insurance sector and customer.
Non direct financial benefits as image building, social care and better road management, are not
taken into account.
All studies confirm a socio-economic benefit beside of human life saving opportunity, and
of positive communication this effort can bring to citizen and customers. Worst scenario is
leading to 1.1 benefit-to-cost ratio, securing the collective effort to promote e-Call.
From existing studies and tests, a close cooperation among stakeholders could make a 3
ratio an acceptable target.
A large bracket of potential effect on death and injuries severity is linked with country
related environment, but as most critical situations occur in rural areas and by night, it
can be expected that e-Call benefits on operation shall be over the bottom figure in
average.
31/03/2006 2 Version 1.0

Chapter 3 - Sector description
3.1 Introduction
Clarification Paper – sub-working group
e-Call is based on immediate alert by shock sensor in case of crash, together with precise
location coordinate, vehicle identification and time. E-Call can bring further information on the
context, occupants, map location, but this shall require more complexity and costs, and then is
expected for a second step.
This document is focusing only on the benefits expected from first step, automatic trigger and
location going directly to local Public Safety Answering Point as for mobile 112 calls.
Information sources:
EC : In the late 90’s and early 00’s, most Car Makers and some Service Providers launched in
European countries automatic and manual e-Call, from a well accepted and somehow
demonstrated customer benefit from shorter alert, localization and further filtering and
information processing. Private tests where conducted in major European countries, some
implying local Emergency Organizations. These tests results where not published, but one can
expect that they shown rescue improvement as a group of offers reached the market. In this
early European stage, most relevant study published was STORM 1 .
Since e-Safety launched e-Call initiative, EC initiated in 2004 a specific study with SEISS 2 , and
Sweden with Stratega/transek 3 .
US: In the North American market, private service providers rolled out even earlier e-Call
commercial offers. OnStar (GM) and ATX are still operating private e-Call, but beside of
testimony advertising and communication statistics, there is little robust information we can
trust in. On the other end, NHTSA and ITS America produced public statistics and reports,
giving a strong base for accident distribution and cost assessments, together with some coherent
metrics on how immediate alert and location can speed up rescue and reduce socio-economic
impacts.
In Japan, HelpNET is a cooperative e-Call approach allowing major telematics service
providers to propose this service in commercial bundles. No statistic on efficiency is easily
available so far.
1 Stuttgart Transport Operation by Regional Management, 1999.
2 Exploratory Study on the potential socio-economic impact of the introduction of ITS in road vehicles;
VDI/VDE/IT/IfV Köln 2004.
3 Short description of ITS safety applications and their potential safety benefits, Stratega/transek,
31/12/2003
31/03/2006 3 Version 1.0

Analysis:
Clarification Paper – sub-working group
1 – Effect of rescue time on death and injuries: The earlier and more precisely medical
treatment can be given following an accident, the higher the chance to save lives and reduce
injuries severity. In the field of accident and emergency medicine the “golden hour” is a
worldwide well-accepted principle on the importance of early medical treatment. “Words of
Experts” say that 80 per cent of injured people with serious traumas (head, breast, heavy
bleeding etc.) die within an hour if they do not receive adequate medical treatment. The
survival rate increases and the long-term consequences of serious injuries are reduced for each
minute gained for the emergency services.
2 – time to the scene : Both American field trials and European studies indicate that the average
time between accident occurrence and medical help reaching the scene has be reduced by 10
minutes (50%) in rural area, and by 4 to 6 minutes in urban area (40%).
This is an average performance, and there are obviously situations and places where the
performance can be very limited (downtown, day time, near emergencies…) and other where it
can be tremendously higher (remote country road, night time 4 )
Nevertheless, these figures sort out as robust and confirmed statistical effect, and can be
proposed as a very consistent base for benefits assumption.
Precise location is further avoiding search by rescue team, raising operational efficiency of
these teams and then improving their productivity. No figures so far are allowing assessing this
effect.
3 – Effects on death and medical severity: ECDG shared in 2004 a lot of US and some EC
finding, through a document name “e-Call economic impact for society; contribution to
rationale analysis on benefits”. (Annex 1) This work drove to the conclusions that shorter reach
will allow up to 15% death reduction and less severe injuries. This study is bringing a lot of US
and EC reference documents and web-sites, together with interviews outputs with eminent US
specialists.
E-Merge report reached the same level of potential effects on severity: According to E-Merge
and, 5 % to 15 % of road fatalities can be reduced to severe injuries and 10 % to 15 % of severe
injuries can be reduced to slight injuries. For slight injuries, no positive effect of eCall was
foreseen (E-Merge 2004: 49).
SEISS study (annex 2) was ordered by EC late 2004 to further assess impact of ITS. Among
them e-Call impact was assessed. SEISS took the same range of severity effects than E-Merge
and ECDG, and added a 10 to 20% reduction of congestion time. SEISS extended these
assumptions with relevant cost assumptions for vehicle and PSAP equipments and operation
costs, and went to the conclusion that e-Call was granting a fair benefit-cost ratio, ranging from
1.3 up to 8.5:
“This gives us a range of attainable benefit-cost ratios of between 1.3 and 8.5, which
represents the combined consideration of the “pessimistic view” and the “optimistic view” for
4 According to figures from Germany’s Federal Statistics Bureau, more than 40% of all automobile
accidents resulting in death occur at night, when night traffic is 80% lower than day traffic.
31/03/2006 4 Version 1.0

Clarification Paper – sub-working group
final recommendations of eCall.
The “pessimistic view”, with 1.3 as the benefit-cost ratio for eCall, shows that, even with a low
success rate and high cost figures, the introduction of eCall is justified, because the resource
savings exceed the costs. This means that eCall would, even under pessimistic assumptions
and hypotheses, contribute to the welfare of the EU-25.
The “optimistic view” shows that in the best case, which means that system efficiency is
reached and costs are minimized due to economies of scale, society can expect to see a
benefit of 8.5 € for every 1 € spent on eCall.”
Nevertheless, a specific Swedish study was made by Vägverket in 2003 (annex 3) suggest that
the potential for Sweden is much lower, assumedly due to country specific elements.
According to the study, balanced evaluation assumes that the potential in Sweden is between 10
and 20 lives saved per year with eCall, i.e. 2-4 per cent of the number of road fatalities. The
proportion of seriously injured with permanent problems is expected to be reduced by 3-4 per
cent. An overall assessment of the benefits also includes a small contribution for reduced delays
for road users resulting from speedier road clearance mainly in urban areas. A total annual
benefit in Sweden amounts to SEK 550-830 million.
This cost estimate includes an annual cost for investment and operation of emergency alarm
centres (SEK 3.5 million) and an assessment of how much vehicle equipment (only the eCall
function) will cost when prices have stabilised after a period of operation. The cost for
equipping the entire vehicle fleet is estimated in the longer term to SEK 350-500 million per
year, which gives a benefit-cost ratio of between 1.1 and 4.2. The system is therefore socio-
economically profitable even using a pessimistic entry assessment on efficiency.
3.2 Open issues
It is always a matter of local context and existing organization, to clearly determine how much
e-Call shall improve emergency action, then reducing consequences and costs. All studies are
getting to the same conclusion that e-Call shall bring a positive cost-benefits ratio, but financial
extrapolations could be further discussed with cost updates and more comprehensive benefits
assumptions.
We propose to consider Golden Hour effect and time to the scene reduction as quite robust
statistical inputs.
We also recommend to take 10 to 15% improvements (both on death and severity) as a valid
assumption for average effect in Europe, as it is supported by a significant base of US and EU
studies.
31/03/2006 5 Version 1.0

Chapter 4 - Conclusion
Clarification Paper – sub-working group
Late 1990’s, e-Call was a promising approach to enhance alert and rescue in case of traffic
accident.
A lot of private attempts to define, operate and sell e-call raised a significant knowledge base
within the industry, but poor commercial success (for what turned out as an attractive but
driving low willingness to pay) made most private players to stop or reduce their efforts. We
can nevertheless consider that operational efficiency was observed in most of these private
attempts.
On the other end, public and academic sectors, together with ITS stakeholders, made trials and
analysis in US and EC. All these analysis bring to the same conclusion that e-Call is definitely
bringing a better and shorter answer to road accidents, and promising in any scenario a positive
cost-benefit ratio.
Draw-backs are very large bracket of potential gains, and some questions on how we can
extract and secure economic benefits out of operation improvements.
Going through all available studies as listed in this document, we can assume that most tests
and studies are supporting the upper middle range of results, and that 3.0 cost-benefits ratio
could be a good common target for a pan-European e-Call. Economic benefits are already quite
well supported by consistent US and EC statistics on cost which shall be directly affected by
immediate alert and precise location, and by sound assumptions on side effects on traffic
consequences of a crash.
31/03/2006 6 Version 1.0

Chapter 5 - References
Clarification Paper – sub-working group
Annex 1: ECDG “e-Call economic impact for society: contribution tot rational analysis on
benfits”, September 2004
Annex 2: SEISS final report “Exploratory Study on the potential socio-economic impact of he
introduction of Intelligent Safety Systems in Road Vehicles”, January 2005
Annex 3: Swedish study by Vägverket in 2003
Other sources :
NHTSA annual report 2000 (http://www.nhtsa.dot.gov/people/economic/EconImpact 2000)
Recommendations for ITS Technology in Technology in Emergency Medical Services, August 2003, William T.
Baker, ITS America, (202) 484-4540. www.itsa.org
US Department of Transportation – ACN Field Operational Test, Western New York area, 2000, Ref DOT HS
809 303,
www.itsdocs.fhwa.dot.gov/JPODOCS/REPTS_TE/ACN%20Final/index.htm#toc
Intelligent Transportation Systems Benefits and Costs, update 2003
Mitretek System for Fedral Highway Administration, Report N° FHWA-OP-03-075;
http://www.itsdocs.fhwa.dot.gov/jpodocs/repts_te/13772.html
ACN Field Operational Test, Erie County, New York, 2001 Ref DOT HS 809 304,
http://www.itsdocs.fhwa.dot.gov//JPODOCS/REPTS_TE//13830.html
OECD report Road Safety impact of New Technologies http://www.escope.info/index.html?file=224
31/03/2006 7 Version 1.0

1 – Objectives of this document
Annex 1 :
e-call economic impact for society
Clarification Paper – sub-working group
Contribution to rational analysis on benefits
From European Commission goal to reduce road fatality by 50% in 2010 (compared to 2000),
and e-Safety Forum recommendation to raise e-Call as first priority within vehicle innovation
contributing to this objective, a private and public workgroup “ECDG” raised several
recommendations on the best way to operate e-Call trough Europe, and is now focusing on
business rational and roll out scenario.
At this stage, it has been recommended and agreed that gradually each vehicle will be fitted with
a device allowing automatic trigger of a call (voice+data) directly to e112 selected PSAP,
together with precise location, identification, time stamp, and server coordinates offering extra
relevant information when available. This first step 5 is the only focus of this analysis.
This approach is in line with several trials and existing products, in Europe and USA. This is
allowing identifying benefits related with time saved in alerting and routing rescue, together with
side effects on global efficiency and incident management.
Key questions raised in this document are:
1. What are the impacts of automatic trigger and precise location in rescue time, and
incident management ;
2. How these impacts turns into better efficiency / lower consequences
3. How better efficiency brings economic impacts beside of human care,and how much
could be saved by equipped car,
4. and who shall benefit from this effort
2 – Context: Global economic impact of vehicle's crashes
5 A further step shall allow to collect and manage extra data in order to deliver as much information as
PSAP can use to improve rescue operation, and to allow third parties to act beside emergency response
to service the distressed people or warn surroundings.
31/03/2006 8 Version 1.0

Clarification Paper – sub-working group
A car crash has a global cost for society, beside of human drama and political issue.
This economic impact is a shared burden, with emergency operation costs, insurance
costs, health costs and lost workplace / productivity costs.
A very strong report is available at NHTSA (http://www.nhtsa.dot.gov/people/economic/EconImpact
2000), and is used as reference for this analysis paper. Such figures exist in Europe but
they are not available in such a format that a rapid analysis can be done on e-Call case.
We can nevertheless assert that figures are in the same range, as global markets are
quite similar:
We then propose to use NHTSA report as a reference document, and to challenge major
assumptions with European known situations and figures.
Year 2000 commonly agreed figures USA Europe (source :
EU COM 311
Final.)
Total registered cars 217 028 000 200 000 000
Total new cars sold/year 17 000 000 16 000 000
Total casualties 3 189 000 1 700 000
Total fatalities 41 821 More than 40 000
Estimated total cost of crashes (k$) 230 600 000 Est 160 000 000
31/03/2006 9 Version 1.0

Clarification Paper – sub-working group
Source : NHTSA report "the economic impact of motor vehicle crashes 2000", may 2002.
Economic Impact of Crashes
> The cost of motor vehicle crashes that occurred in 2000 totaled $230.6 billion. This is equal to
approximately $820 for every person living in the United States and 2.3 percent of the U.S. Gross
Domestic Product.
> The lifetime economic cost to society for each fatality is over $977,000. Over 80 percent of this amount
is attributable to lost workplace and household productivity.
> Each critically injured survivor cost an average of $1.1 million. Medical costs and lost productivity
accounted for 84 percent of the cost for this most serious level of non-fatal injury.
> Lost workplace productivity costs totaled $61 billion, which equaled 26 percent of the total costs. Lost
household productivity totaled $20.2 billion, representing 9 percent of the total costs.
> Total property damage costs for all crash types (fatal, injury, and property damage only) totaled $59
billion and accounted for 26 percent of all costs.
> Property damage only crashes (in which vehicles were damaged but nobody was injured) were the most
costly type of crash, due to their very high rate of occurrence. Their costs totaled $59.8 billion and
accounted for 26 percent of total motor vehicle crash costs.
> Present and future medical costs due to injuries occurring in 2000 were $32.6 billion, representing 14
percent of the total costs. Medical costs accounted for 26 percent of costs from non-fatal injuries.
> Travel delay cost $25.6 billion or 11 percent of total crash costs.
> Approximately 9 percent of all motor vehicle crash costs are paid from public revenues. Federal
revenues accounted for 6 percent and states and localities paid for approximately 3 percent.
Private insurers pay approximately 50 percent of all costs. Individual crash victims pay approximately 26
percent while third parties such as uninvolved motorists delayed in traffic, charities, and health care
providers pay about 14 percent. Overall, those not directly involved in crashes pay for nearly three-
quarters of all crash costs, primarily through insurance premiums, taxes and travel delay. In 2000 these
costs, borne by society rather than by crash victims, totaled over $170 billion.
31/03/2006 10 Version 1.0

3 – Impact analysis from existing materials
Clarification Paper – sub-working group
3.1 – Impact of automatic trigger, precise location and identification in rescue time and
incident management
Automatic triggered emergency call with precise
location & direction shows a clear improvement in
reducing rescue time at the crash scene.
Quite robust assumptions can be shared from European and US trials and reports, as
they were made in various places and times and reached the same levels:
Europe:
E-merge project used a German study "STORM" (Stuttgart Transport Operation by Regional
Management), showing almost 50% rescue time improvement in rural area, with a net gain of
almost 10 minutes:
31/03/2006 11 Version 1.0

Clarification Paper – sub-working group
When the average time in urban areas decreased from 13 minutes down to 8 minutes.
PSA and Renault were also involved with French "Préfecture de Paris" for a live test in Paris
(summer 2000), and its nearby rural area. This test proved the same kind of positive effect on
rescue time, and rescue coordination enhanced efficiency. It also shown the opportunity to rise
alert to the environment, and then to avoid over-accident and route congestion.
USA:
These figures and information have been collected on several US federal websites, as
recommended by Dr. Ricardo Martinez, former NHTSA Administrator (94/99) and current CEO of
Safety Intelligence System. Phone interviews and mail exchanges with Dr Martinez secured
these elements.
� Average times without Automatic Crash Notification (ACN) in USA are in line with STORM
report, regardless of differences in road infrastructures, cars and driving behavior 6 :
Area type Average notification Average time to
scene
Total
Rural 9,6 min 11 min 20,6 min
Urban 5,2 min 3,4 min 8,6 min
� Emergency efficiency: ACN allow a strong average 2 minutes. notification time when an
average rural 7 minutes was going up to hours 7 : to compare with 11 minutes down to 2.5
minutes in Storm study. Rural crashes account for most of the fatalities (60%), and single rural
crashes for almost 1/3 of US fatalities. This is likely to be at same levels in Europe, when e-Call
is proving maximal impact in rural areas.
� PSAP efficiency: ACN reliability to avoid false alarms was proven in a 700 ACN system pilot 3
where a low 3.5% false alarm was observed. 27% of received calls were originated by mobile
phones at time of the report. This share is still growing, bringing multiple call for a same incident
(80 to 100 calls per crash in urban area, to compare with an average of 6 call from fixed lines!),
together with loose or no location. ACN can help to filter calls thanks to automatic trigger and
6 Recommendations for ITS Technology in Technology in Emergency Medical Services, August 2003,
William T. Baker, ITS America, (202) 484-4540. www.itsa.org
7 US Department of Transportation – ACN Field Operational Test, Western New York area, 2000
Ref DOT HS 809 303, www.itsdocs.fhwa.dot.gov/JPODOCS/REPTS_TE/ACN%20Final/index.htm#toc
31/03/2006 12 Version 1.0

Clarification Paper – sub-working group
precise location. Public Safety Community able to successfully use ACN; can help to adapt
resources to the case (FSD) 3
� Side effects: Fast notification of an incident for surrounding traffic allowed 2,8% new crash
reduction (San Antonio, Texas) and reduced average incident duration by more that 55%
(Maryland) 8
Conclusions:
• STORM figures are viable assumptions, from US bench and “words of experts”.
Regardless the time and place, same level of results were observed in US and Europe.
• E-Call shall allow almost 50% shorter reach (about 10 minutes saved) to the scene in
rural area, where alert can be very late and location hard to find, and up to 40% shorter
reach in urban areas (4 to 5 minutes).
• Moreover, US tests proved impacts on surrounding warning, then reducing risks of new
crashes and dropping average incident duration by more than 50%.
• Last, e-Call brought a better PSAP resources efficiency by reducing false alerts and
allowing better resources fit to the scene.
3.2 – How these impacts turn into better efficiency and lower severity
Emergency Organizations are well aware of the “Golden Hour” concept, stating that the first tens
on minutes following a crash are critical for survival or reduced injuries.
A good presentation of this concept is available on an US ITS report.
US Department of Transportation – ACN Field Operational Test, Erie County, New York, 2001 9 :
“The time dependence of trauma is commonly accepted. For example, Reference 21 states for
traumatic brain injury, “All neurological damage does not occur at the moment of impact (primary
injury), but rather evolves over the ensuing minutes, hours, and days. This secondary brain injury
can result in increased mortality and more disabling injuries.” What remains in question is the
exact quantification of this variable. Contemporary literature in this field (References 20 - 24)
often refers to a “golden hour” where the first 60 minutes of care after a multiple trauma injury is
described as “crucial.” Furthermore, within this first hour, care seeking to correct the underlying
problem causing the patient’s condition to worsen must be administered. This type of care can
best be administered in a suitable facility such as an emergency room or, even better, a
8 Intelligent Transportation Systems Benefits and Costs, update 2003
Mitretek System for Fedral Highway Administration, Report N° FHWA-OP-03-075;
http://www.itsdocs.fhwa.dot.gov/jpodocs/repts_te/13772.html
9 Ref DOT HS 809 304, http://www.itsdocs.fhwa.dot.gov//JPODOCS/REPTS_TE//13830.html
31/03/2006 13 Version 1.0

Clarification Paper – sub-working group
dedicated trauma center. Thus, transport of the victim to such a facility needs to be accomplished
within this time frame. Administration of fluids and other simple, supportive care treatments, while
not enough in critical situations, should be started within the “Golden Ten Minutes” (Reference
25). This offers a loose bound of 10 minutes on the time from the occurrence of the motor vehicle
crash to the arrival of medical aid in severe cases. “…”The change in the time distribution of
deaths resulting from trauma is significant due to the likely causes of these changes. The “early
deaths” peak likely has been reduced due to a better understanding of trauma and improved
facilities and thus more quickly administered medical aid. A study reported in 1998 in Portland,
Oregon (Reference 29) further bolsters the importance of the time-dependence of trauma. The
researchers found, after examining 848 trauma cases, that the response time was significantly
shorter (3.5 ± 1.2 minutes) for unexpected survivors compared to unexpected fatalities (5.4 ± 4.3
minutes). Simply put, a shorter response time resulted in a greater likelihood of survival. “
Even if we can hardly turn that common understanding into robust statistics, it is obvious that
saving average 10 minutes in rural area, where almost 2/3 of crashes and 1/3 of fatalities occur
(and securing an alert when no witness can give a good Samaritan call within minutes), will have
a dramatic positive impact in saving people and reducing severity of wounds. A very conservative
assumption would be a 10% average reduction of severity; a more realistic view could be up to
20%.
US Department of Transportation – ACN Field Operational Test, Erie County, New
York, 2001 10 :
An ACN system should reduce the length of time between traumas and needed restorative
medical care. Extrapolating from the findings of air transport fatality reduction studies
(References 30 and 31), the ACN system could offer an approximate 20% reduction in fatalities
from motor vehicle collisions. This estimate assumes that adequate medical facilities would be
available. Unfortunately, no studies have been found to assess the time dependence of injury
severity caused by motor vehicle trauma. Thus, any estimate of the affect of ACN on reducing
injury severity would be little more than a guess. This area requires further study. However, an
NHTSA-sponsored multidisciplinary research team has produced a computer program
(References 2, 4, and 5) which attempts to produce an easily understood probability of serious
injury estimate making use of data which would be available from an ACN system.
To further support this assumption, another US study (non identified but quoted in 2 ) came down
to the conclusion that ACN could save a yearly 1676 life (6%) and have “even more far reaching”
effect on severity of highways injuries.
10 Ref DOT HS 809 304, http://www.itsdocs.fhwa.dot.gov//JPODOCS/REPTS_TE//13830.html
31/03/2006 14 Version 1.0

Clarification Paper – sub-working group
Side effects on incident management and improved rescue efficiency (false call filtering, better
resources fit to the situation) can hardly be estimated, but can be seen as bonuses securing the
10% assumption.
Conclusion:
e-Call shall allow a conservative 10 to 15% average gain on severity brackets (as used in
MHTSA reference report), together with improved rescue costs and reduced incident impact on
the traffic.
3.3 – Financial Benefits of e-Call
A key pending question is now, from confirmed benefits of e-Call (reduction on rescue time on
European accidents, improved PSAP efficiency, better surroundings warning), to evaluate the
global economic benefits from existing statistics and costs split.
• E-call benefits are mostly expected to reduce fatality and injury level, with a direct impact
in health costs (public sector & insurances) and insurance costs (insurances).
• It should also reduce emergency services costs (public sector) and travel delay
(speeding access to the crash and information to road users: public sector)
• Legal costs should as well be reduced according with crash severity reduction, and using
data received from the crash scene to better solve legal disputes.
• Last, market productivity and household work loss are less directly linked with identified
players, but must be a political concern and by the way, drive attention from state
organization as well as insurance companies.
• The main field where e-call has a marginal impact (if any) is on Property Damages.
High level assumptions
From NHTSA figures, and not diving into details, we can already bring some assumptions and
estimate the economic effect.
� First high-level assumption is that reduced time to the crash should bring up to 15% of the
victims to the lower category.
� Second assumption from NHTSA split of total cost, is that e-call shall impact at least 50% of
this total cost, with lower perceived benefit on Productivity issues and Property Damages as
insurance ability to recover on these cost is not yet proven.
31/03/2006 15 Version 1.0

Clarification Paper – sub-working group
Part of this amount impacted by shorter rescue time
Medical 14%
Rescue cost 1%
Market productivity 26%
Household Productivity 9%
Workplace Cost 2%
Travel delay 11%
Insurance administration 7%
� Third assumption is that European crash figures are the same than US, and that 1 USD = 1
EUR
From these three high level assumptions and NHTSA figures, and as a discussion basis, we can
bring complementary following analyses:
1 – First assumption from US current cost split by severity:
31/03/2006 16 Version 1.0
70%

Clarification Paper – sub-working group
To support this way of computing the possible savings due to an e-Call system, it may be worth to
mention again a US study (US Department of Transportation – ACN Field Operational Test,
Erie County, New York, 2001 11 ):
To compute the possible cost savings that could result due to an ACN system, several
assumptions need to be made. The dollar amounts shown in the preceding paragraph have to be
averaged over the number of people injured or killed. This assumes that each person injured or
killed caused an equivalent financial loss, or, that the inexpensive ones exactly balance the
expensive cases. Next, it is assumed that the total number of people killed or injured would
remain the same. Although there could be a substantial reduction in the number of people injured
due to the ACN, this is not taken into account. Thus, if usage of the ACN system reduced the
number of fatalities, the number injured would increase by approximately the same amount.
Those who originally would have been fatalities but survive due to earlier medical intervention
might be considered to become injured at the “average” financial level. Although this may seem
counterintuitive at first, two factors support this assumption. First, neurological traumas in
automobile crashes can result in severe and expensive permanent disabilities. However, many of
the fatalities caused by severe neurological trauma would be virtually impossible to prevent.
Secondly, those people who could be saved by earlier medical intervention often die from loss of
blood or difficulties breathing. If these injuries can be stabilized, many times a full recovery can
be expected as opposed to an extremely expensive and permanent handicap.
This is quite in line with existing analysis shared by e-Call Driving group, as hereafter:
Year 2000 Total cost Population Unit average cost
Fatalities 40 859 117 000 41 821 $ 977 000
Very severe injury (MAIS
5) 10 372 971 543 9 463 $ 1 096 161
Severe injury (MAIS 4) 12 709 987 697 36 509 $ 348 133
MAIS 3 23 430 170 591 125 903 $ 186 097
MAIS 2 29 133 987 740 436 007 $ 66 820
MAIS 1 49 214 536 770 4 659 585 $ 10 562
MAIS 0 5 000 074 596 2 548 458 $ 1 962
170 720 845 937
This is already removing Property Damage Crashes (about 60 billion USD), as they show no
clear benefit from e-call (except over-accident avoiding).
11 Ref DOT HS 809 304, http://www.itsdocs.fhwa.dot.gov//JPODOCS/REPTS_TE//13830.html
31/03/2006 17 Version 1.0

Clarification Paper – sub-working group
In order to reduce interpretation on severity of injury and bracket effects, we propose to reduce
number of severity levels by half:
Year 2000, EU=US Population
average Per Person
Costs
Fatalities 41 821 $ 977 000
Severe injury (MAIS 4+5) 45 972 $ 502 109
Medium injury (MAIS 2+3) 561 910 $ 93 546
Light injury (MAIS 0+1) 7 208 043 $ 7 521
Then, to consider that a fairly conservative 15% of crashes victims will fall in lower category
thanks to e-call reduced time to the scene:
Initial Population Improved population
Fatalities 41 821 35 548
Severe injury (MAIS 4+5) 45 972 45 349
Medium injury (MAIS 2+3) 561 910 484 519
Light injury (MAIS 0+1) 7 208 043 6 211 123
We can of course consider that light injuries will not benefit in the same extend of reduced
emergency arrival time, but the risk of waiting beside of a car in a crash situation may prove
some benefits as well.
Economic outlook would then be:
Improved
population
Fatalities 35 548
Severe injury (MAIS 4+5) 45 349
Medium injury (MAIS
2+3) 484 519
Light injury (MAIS 0+1) 6 211 123
average Costs
Per Person Improved costs
$ 977
$ 502
$ 93
$ 7
000 $ 34 730 249 450
109 $ 22 770 321 013
546 $ 45 324 605 719
521 $ 46 716 372 572
Total $149 541 548 754
Estimated total economic benefit for all players should then be around 21,180 million €,
31/03/2006 18 Version 1.0

Clarification Paper – sub-working group
This first estimate does not take into account operation efficiency improvements, nor reduced
congestion and further accident avoiding.
From the above calculation, and the new cars sold each year in Europe (16 000 000), we can
identify a 662 € statistic saving opportunity per new car sold.
2 – From estimated average risk per vehicle & per year
A simpler way to compute a rough estimate would be to identify average yearly risk per vehicle
from global costs, then to focus on the ratio impacted by shorter alert and reach to the scene,
and finally, to assume an average global risk reduction thanks to e-Call.
An estimated 10% risk reduction is assumed from former discussion, knowing that this figure is
highly hypothetical and shall need further test and analysis.
Such rough analysis would bring a European average risk of 800 € per year (160 billions €
divided by 200 billions motor vehicles), from wich 70% are impacted by shorter rescue time.
This average 560€ impacted risk would then be reduced by 10%, allowing a 56€ gain per vehicle
per year.
For a 12 years average vehicle lifetime, total potential saving per vehicle would be in the
range of 600 to 700€, quite coherent with former more detailed analysis.
3.4 – Who shall benefit from this effort
Final customer is obviously among the main stakeholders benefiting e-Call, as this can save their
life as well as protect their family and friends. They could appreciate enhanced peace of mind,
and later enjoy accident management as well as further value added services from the same
technical platform. But …
Final customers are not willing to pay for e-call, as they mostly consider this as a public duty. On
the other end, they are aware of the benefits of an automatic and located call…
Public sector and insurance companies should prove a rational benefit, both on economic and
social effect of crashes, but also on positive communication opportunity.
As a matter of fact, from NHTSA split of road accidents cost, they appear to be by far the main
stakeholders supporting the impacted costs :
31/03/2006 19 Version 1.0

Clarification Paper – sub-working group
Share of this amount impacted by shorter rescue time
Medical Public Sector ; Insurance 14%
Rescue cost Public Sector 1%
Market productivity Public Sector ; Insurance 26%
Household Productivity Public Sector , global economy 9%
Workplace Cost Public Sector ; industry 2%
Travel delay Public Sector , global economy 11%
Insurance administration Insurance industry 7%
We can assume than far more that 50% of potential savings will directly or non-directly benefit
these two stakeholders. Public sector is also concerned by global economy and competitiveness,
where e-Call can support a local industry and protect household productivity.
Car industry unsuccessfully tried to promote e-call. Carmakers have a clear view of technical
environment, relevant data and operations cost, and cannot, in a competitive market, support
alone the cost of such effort, when this effort brings a clear benefit for most players on the market
and end-user/citizen.
4 - Conclusions :
The ECDG sub-group in charge of benefits assumptions can consider:
1. That an average 10 minutes (50%) time reduction is a sound figure in rural areas in most
European areas
2. That a 4 to 5 minutes (40%) time reduction is also quite robust in Urban areas
3. That rural crash are bringing more risk of late alert and late arrival of rescues, when rural
crashes are bringing around 2/3 of road statistics and 1/3 of fatalities. E-Call being even more
efficient in rural areas, we can assume that the positive effects will prove substantial.
4. That side benefits in rescue operations, false alarms filtering, and better scene management will
bring extra benefits which should secure current economic assumptions
5. That this shorter time to the scene has a substantial impact on death and severity reduction,
which shall turn in lower global cost for society. 10 to 20% involved people moving to lower
severity bracket is seen as realistic.
6. That from these elements, and although this would need further analysis and trials, a 500 to 700
€ average saving per equipped vehicle, is likely.
31/03/2006 20 Version 1.0
70%

ANNEX 2:
Clarification Paper – sub-working group
http://www.escope.info/index.html?file=237
ANNEX 3:
http://www.escope.info/index.html?file=223
Ekonomisk värdering av eCall i Sverige
Ett par internationella projekt 12 har genomfört beräkningar av de samhällsekonomiska
effekterna av eCall för Europa. Det använda tillvägagångssättet har nedan använts med svensk
statistik och med de värderingar av döda och skadade i vägtrafiken som tillämpas i Vägverkets
samhällsekonomiska modeller.
Enligt de internationella studierna (E-MERGE, E-Safety Driving Group och SEISS) räknar man
med att ett utbyggt eCall med i princip alla fordon utrustade medför att
• 5 – 15% av antalet trafikdödade kan reduceras till svårt skadade
• 10 – 15% av antalet svårt skadade kan reduceras till lätt skadade
• Inga förändringar uppkommer för lätt skadade
Ovannämnda siffror utgör antaganden som bygger på amerikanska erfarenheter, men också på
tidsmätningar av räddningsinsatser i Stuttgart (STORM-projektet) och i Paris. Studierna
innefattar också konsekvensanalyser av tidig medicinsk behandling av olycksoffer. 13
Antalet skadade av olika svårighetsgrad från polisrapporterade olyckor i Sverige 2003 är
Antal personer
Dödade Svårt skadade Lindrigt skadade
529 4 664 22 439
Med ovannämnda ansatser erhålles potentialen
12 E-MERGE Final report; ERTICO-ITS Europe, juni 2004 och eSafety Driving Group 2004
Exploratory Study on the potential socio-economic impact of the introduction of Intelligent Safety
Systems in Road Vehicles, VDI/VDE/IT/IfV Köln 2004
13 E-call economic impact for society. Contribution to rational analysis on benefits. eSafety Driving
Group 2004
US Department of Transportation – ACN Field Operational Test, Erie County, New York, 2001 m fl
31/03/2006 21 Version 1.0

Clarification Paper – sub-working group
Effekt på olyckskonsekvens Låg påverkan av eCall Hög påverkan av eCall
Dödsfall ändras till svårt skadade 26 79
Svårt skadade ändras till lätt skadade 466 700
De värden som användes i Vägverkets samhällsekonomiska kalkyler visas i nedan. Här framgår
också den besparing som kan erhållas vid övergång från dödsfall till svårt skadad respektive
från svårt till lätt skadad, dvs enhetskostnaden för dödsfall minskat med motsvarande för svårt
skadad resp för svårt skadad minskat med lätt skadad.
Typ av konsekvens Enhetskostnad (MSEK) Besparing per typ (MSEK)
Dödsfall 17,5 14,4
Svårt skadad 3,1 2,9
Lätt skadad 0,175 -
Med ovannämnda kalkylunderlag erhålles
Nytta Låg påverkan av eCall
(MSEK)
Hög påverkan av eCall
(MSEK)
Besparing av liv och lidande 1 725 3170
I en svensk rapport 14 har bl a olika trafiksäkerhetsåtgärder inom ITS-området analyserats och
bedömts. En bedömning har gjorts av hur många olyckor med dödlig utgång som över huvud
taget skulle kunna vara möjliga att påverka med en snabbare räddningsinsats. 8% av dödsfallen
(dvs ca 40 personer) bedömdes initialt vara av karaktären att räddningsinsatsen skulle kunna ha
betydelse för utgången av skadan. En vidare analys pekade på ytterligare minskningar av
potentialen till följd av organisatoriska begränsningar avseende t ex möjligheterna att snabbare
sätta in relevanta medicinska resurser. Dessa och andra faktorer bedöms reducera potentialen
till 20 personer vars liv skulle kunna räddas med snabbare räddningsinsats. eCall är härvid en
av flera viktiga komponenter. 40 % av potentialen, dvs 8 personer per år, bedöms kunna
överleva med ett fullt utbyggd eCall.
Här skall tilläggas att i ett seminarium med svenska säkerhetsexperter, då resultaten från
studien diskuterades, var den allmänna uppfattningen att även potentialen 8 personer per år
bedömdes ligga i överkant.
I en rapport om Ambulanshelikopterverksamheten i Sverige 15 refereras till ett diagram om
överlevnad vid trafikolyckor beroende på tiden från skada till medicinsk hjälp. Här framgår att
14 Potentialen hos ITS att öka trafiksäkerheten på kort och lång sikt, Stratega och Transek på uppdrag av
Vägverket 2003-12-31
15 Handell & Dahl, Ambulanshelikopterverksamheten i Sverige, Vägverket Publ nr 1996:6
31/03/2006 22 Version 1.0

Clarification Paper – sub-working group
26% av alla trafikdödade skulle kunna räddas med omedelbar medicinsk insats. Denna siffra
sjunker successivt och efter en timme är endast 5% fortfarande vid liv (gyllene timmen).
Med stöd av bl a mätningarna i i USA och STORM-projektet kan eCall bidraga till att en första
medicinsk insats på olycksplatsen kan sättas efter i genomsnitt 10 min i stället för 20 min i
tätbebyggda områden och efter 5 i stället för 9 min utanför tätort. Om detta appliceras på
diagrammet erhålles en möjlig reducering av antalet döda med 5 % i tätort och 2% utanför
tätort. Detta förutsätter att adekvat medicinsk behandling kan sättas in. Se diagram nedan!
23
18
10 min 20 min
Figur:
Överlevnadspotentialen mht tid
från skada till medicinsk behand-
ling. Inbesparad tid med eCall och
effekterna på potentialen visas
med röda (streckade) linjer för
tätort
Källa: Helikopter inför 80-talet,
Tiden/Folksam 1982
I en sammanvägd värdering där hänsyn tagits till såväl de internationella uppgifterna som till
den svenska värderingen och studien av ambulanshelikopterverksamheten görs en bedömning
att potentialen för Sverige ligger i intervallet 10 – 20 räddade liv per år med eCall, dvs 2 - 4%
av antalet trafikdödade. Andelen svårt skadade antages minska med 3 - 4%.
Fördröjning vid olyckor
I de internationella studierna finns även en ansats till bedömning av hur snabbare räddnings-
insats kan bidraga till att minska fördröjningen för trafiken. Generellt för Europa anges att den
totala kötiden vid olyckor kan minska med 10 – 20% med fullt utbyggt system. Denna uppgift
kan förmodas variera stort beroende på trafikintensiteten i respektive land och är inte direkt
tillämpbar för Sverige.
Effekter av minskad kötid kan möjligen uppkomma på sträckor där trafikflödet är relativt stort
och många kan beröras. Den förkortning av larmtiden som eCall kan åstadkomma på sådana
sträckor bedöms dock vara marginell bl a på grund av den höga mobiltelefonpenetrationen i
Sverige. Uppröjningsarbetet kan endast marginellt påverkas av ett eCall-system. Ofta behövs
rapport från platsen för att kunna bedöma och sätta in de rätta upprensningsinsatserna. En
31/03/2006 23 Version 1.0

Clarification Paper – sub-working group
försiktig gissning är att eCall möjligen kan bidraga till att reducera kötiden motsvarande en
nytta på 5 – 10 MSEK årligen.
Totalvärdering av nyttan
Med de värden över potentialen räddade liv (2-4%) respektive minskade skadekonsekvenser (3-
4%) som angivits ovan erhålles att nyttan vid ett fullt utbyggt och 100-ligt implementerat
system är i mellan 550 - 830 MSEK.
Här kan tilläggas att Finland baserat sin bedömning främst på beräkningarna i EU-projektet E-
MERGE. Finland har något färre dödade i trafiken än Sverige (415 per år) men flera svårt
skadade (8 156 per år ). Man har angivit nyttopotentialen till 91 M€ per år dvs ca 830 MSEK
Kostnad
Nyttan måste ställas mot kostnaden som uppträder i form av investeringskostnader för system,
utrustning, utbildning och drift hos larmcentral.
Men en utrustningspenetration på 100% måste ca 4,9 miljoner fordon (personbilar, MC, bussar
och lastbilar 2004) förses med eCall-utrustning. Kostnaden för denna utrustning uppskattas till
1 000 – 1 500 SEK per enhet. Detta är en uppskattning av vad en ren eCall-utrustning kan
kosta. Om utrustningen har tilläggstjänster som tillhandahålls av privata tjänsteleverantörer blir
de dyrare. En gissning är att kostnaden för utrustningen på sikt kan komma att sjunka till runt
hälften om fordonstillverkarna inför eCall som standard i nya fordon, dvs 500 – 750 SEK per
enhet. Med ett antagande om 8 års livslängd och 3% ränta blir annuitetsfaktorn 0,14. Med den
lägre prisnivån ger detta en årlig total kostnad på mellan 350 och 500 MSEK.
SOS Alarm AB har lämnat en kostnadsindikation på 3,5 MSEK årligen. Denna innefattar
utvecklings- och införandeaktiviteter för ett landstäckande system.
Sammantagen nytta/kostnadsbedömning
Med ovannämnda grova samhällsekonomiska värdering bedöms den årliga nyttan uppgå till
mellan 550 och 830 MSEK medan kostnaderna ligger på mellan 350 och 500 MSEK. Larm-
centralernas investerings- och driftkostnader har beaktats i bedömningen men är marginella i
sammanhanget.
Med de antaganden som gjorts hamnar nytto-kostnadskvoten i spannet 1,1 – 4,2. För den lägre
nivån i intervallet har den låga nyttan ställts i relation till den höga kostnaden och vice versa.
Med en pessimistisk syn visar beräkningen alltså att trots låg framgångsfaktor och höga
kostnader kan det vara berättigat att införa konceptet. Med en optimistisk syn kan man räkna
med att konceptet blir klart lönsamt. Nyttan är nästan fyra gånger så stor som kostnaderna.
31/03/2006 24 Version 1.0

eCall Business Case
Automotive Manufacturers Position
Version 14.03.06
For automobile manufacturers eCall will not generally create a positive business case.
The same is probably valid for other stakeholders like insurers as well.
The automotive industry is currently investigating two possible solutions for eCall
(1) Integrated solution (fully embedded)
(2) Mobile phone based solution (smart interface)
and has communicated minimum specifications to different stakeholders of the eCall
value chain for comments (version 0.10). The two solutions offer different benefits and
have different implications for the eCall business case. Therefore, they will be discussed
and investigated with regard to its profit potential separately in this paper.
1. Integrated systems (factory fitted)
1.1 Base system approach
1.1.1 The cost side
Independent from necessary further R&D efforts and its related costs the onboard unit
itself with satellite positioning (GPS/Galileo module), communication unit (GSM), and
other features (memory, etc.) plus vehicle integration will probably cost more than € 100-
150 cost price.
In case a SIM card is needed for the base unit, additional cost for the card plus lifetime
management will probably increase the cost price for the manufacturers to € 150-200 1 .
Some suppliers argue that they have products under development, which would lead to
lower costs, but details are not published and the issues of integration and lifetime SIM
remain an open question.
In case all 230 million vehicles in Europe would be equipped with a standard base eCall
system the whole cost would amount to 34,5 – 46 bn Euro (over 20 years at current
costs). The first 6 years of a start up phase would probably cost 6,7 bn Euro (see chart
under 1.2.1.1) below).
The Automotive Manufacturers are not supporting retrofit solutions due to reliability,
performance, cost and HMI issues.
1 All cost figures are very rough estimates and could change when detailed calculations are done

1.1.2 The revenue/cost compensation side
1.1.2.1 Public Health and Social Sector
To finance in-vehicle devices/functionalities the ECDG has identified significant cost
savings in the public health and social sectors.
These savings, which were calculated at maximum 21 - 26 bn € per annum (10 year
average) are mainly reductions in public health care and social costs (4 bn probably in
congestion savings), areas which are today in a serious deficit in most European
countries. Even though reductions of deficits are important, they do not lead to
enthusiasm to share parts of those savings with others in order to generate the overall
savings in the first instance. This is even more complicated by the fact that societal health
and social costs savings happen in many areas and cannot easily be identified by single
players. The result is a general reluctance of the Member States to enter discussions with
the industry on this subject.
We have calculated an accumulated saving potential in the first 6 years of more than 24
bn Euro.
Due to other measures (active/preventive safety) the saving potential of eCall p.a. will
probably decline afterwards.
EU model calculation for financial support based on US
research findings
% new car sal
100
90
80
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
t0-1
MOU
signed
t0
t0+1
t0+2
t0+3
t0+4
First new
vehicle
model
launches
with IVS
Joint
Roll-
European Infrastructure set up/adaptation
out
plan IVS development
t0+5
years

1.1.2.2 Insurances
Many stakeholders have mistaken the public saving potential as insurance savings and
have asked the insurance companies to adequately contribute to eCall.
In a meeting on January 24, 2006 the insurance representatives stated that for them the
single eCall embedded solution would not create any benefits as a Non-SIM or “eCall
only SIM” solution would not allow real-time information of insurance companies in
order to reach productivity gains (by higher process efficiency).
While “crash notification” could probably have a positive impact in general (process
improvements) two other Telematics related services (more or less using similar
hardware as eCall with SIM) are of higher importance: “Tracking and Tracing” (T&T)
and “Pay as you use”. However, even with the potential benefits out of an up-graded
version of eCall with a “commercial” SIM, software adaptations and interfaces to link
additional services the insurances may not subsidize major part of the system cost upfront
but could help amortizing OEM investments 2 .
Even when looking into other potential insurance relevant services (less accident -> less
costs) this statement does not change 3
1.1.2.3 Vehicle manufacturers
There are no benefits on the vehicle manufacturer side related to the base unit as back end
benefits require communication links beyond the 112-call connection.
Concerning back end benefits the automotive manufactures have carried out in-depth
studies to evaluate the commercial value of such systems for their own purposes and
found out that the assumed savings are much lower than expected and that the cost for a
more sophisticated hardware than the base unit exceeds the benefits, when calculated
independently from other applications.
There might be better possibilities for commercial vehicles. Details, however, are not
available.
1.1.2.4 Mobile Network Providers/ Telecommunication companies
Telecoms do not see a business in providing a non-commercial SIM card and feel very
insecure about the lifetime costs of such cards, not to talk about potential investments in
handling an increased number of eCalls free of charge through their networks.
When providing a non-commercial SIM card than – at minimum - the lifetime costs need
to be covered. Depending on the price charged the Telecoms could make a profit or just
2 A business evaluation of the two services, T&T and “Pay as you drive” could be found in annex I but
need to be left to insurers for more details.
3 For an evaluation of more potential Telematics related services with insurance saving/profit potential see
annex II. Insurers have stated that their possible contribution for data acquisition might be substantial.

cover their costs. As 112 calls, however, are free of charge to the customer, any increase
in mobile 112 calls is critical from a Telecom business point of view.
1.1.2.5 Emergency operators
Emergency operators will generate savings through higher service efficiency. Satellite
location based services will reduce travel and search time and speed up internal
processes. No details on cost savings known.
1.1.2.6 The Customer
Any efficient emergency call will help to save lives and reduce heavy injuries due to
faster rescue times. As found out in a number of representative research reports the
customer has safety/security services including breakdown and eCall on his priority list
but is not willing to pay for such a hypothetical service, he hopefully will never use.
There are numerous examples where customers tried to exchange emergency service
features against metallic paint or accessory options.
1.2 Multi service box (fully embedded Telematics/navigation device)
Today, a number of vehicle manufacturers offer emergency services through private
service providers. The system is either part of a Telematics units or a navigation system.
The service provider mainly handles the breakdown service for the OEM and has offered
emergency services (automatic/manual) as an add-on.
In spite of the increasing penetration of navigation systems in the market such a solution
will probably reach its limits. It is estimated that at the current price level for in-built
navigation systems the car park penetration will not exceed 2%. It is, therefore, expected
that the OEMs will introduce more “affordable” navigation units.
On the truck side other devices like OBU (Tolling box), T&T and Fleet Management
devices also play an important role and can be used – next to navigation – for eCall.
Business case considerations will ensure that all “multi service boxes” are based on a
positive return on investment.
Strong growth is expected for nomadic navigation systems, which could add eCall as an
additional feature in the future. Nomadic device manufactures sell those devices at a
profit.
Vehicle manufacturers would profit from those devices as they allow valuable back end
services. It is known that today some manufactures invest in such communication devices
to have better access to their vehicles (VRM, CRM). Synergies between the two
independent approaches could reduce costs.
Insurances would profit when devices would allow at least the three Telematics
applications as pointed out before.

Telecom companies would profit from higher penetration/usage of mobile services and
airtime in vehicles.
For the public side savings are included in the reduction of the health sector costs and the
improved emergency service efficiency.
2. Mobile phone based solutions
In parallel to the embedded system OEMs are proposing mobile phone based solutions.
A professional interface between the mobile device and the vehicle would allow both
automatic eCall with data transfer (Minimum Set of Data) and manual call and could
exclude certain applications with high distraction potential (e.g. TV while driving, etc.).
The interface could be established through a standardized e.g. Bluetooth interface
(extension of the wide spread Bluetooth hands-free-profile (HFP)). Another advantage
would be that the solution is independent from a carrier network technology (GSM,
UTMS, etc.) over the vehicle lifetime, as any change will only affect the connecting
device (mobile phone).
This solution can do better than the nomadic navigation alternative as it officially links
into the vehicles (approved by OEMs) BUS system. As it is expected that the future
generations of mobile phones (smart phones) will have the necessary intelligence
(Satellite positioning module, e.g. OSGi platform, etc.) already integrated, the “box” in
the car could be reduced to a minimum. From a business point of view, however, all
Telematics services will be offered by the Telecom industry only while the OEMs just get
paid for the interface into the vehicle architecture. The SIM card is a commercial SIM
card. HMI issues need to be considered for safe and secure placement of the mobile
device.
This scenario creates some positive revenues for the mobile phone manufacturers as
customer can use their devices in a much safer way in the vehicles. By this, more services
can be offered to meet individual customer needs. eCall integrated mobile devices (to be
used in and outside the vehicle) add additional benefits for the customer.
Telecoms would profit from more airtime.
The automobile industry would get additional revenues through integration of mobile
devices in the vehicle but runs the risk to loose profitable hardware business. Back end
benefits could also be created but require secured lines.
The public side would benefit as well even though some of their requirements will not be
fulfilled as long as they are not cross-financed.
Potential insurance support to this solution is questionable as vehicle related applications
are restricted initially to MSD (minimum set of data) and T&T and “Pay as you use”
applications cannot be supported by a non-embedded platform.

In all scenarios the customer is the ultimate beneficiary as it is his accident and his life.
3. Summary and Recommendation
It can be seen that when looking into eCall by stakeholder group a positive business case
can only be created if:
… for an embedded base eCall system the Member States and other stakeholders who
expect savings share the costs with those who carry the cost.
In this case the sum of stakeholder benefits for an embedded base system would at least
cover the costs of the system. The public funding should go mainly to the OEMs, which
offer the solution as standard equipment, volume related and for the reduction of
equipment costs in order to avoid margin effects, or to the customer purchasing equipped
vehicles (but then supporting margins and taxes on street prices). However, there is
currently no indication in key member states to financially support such a solution.
… for a mobile phone based solution with commercial SIM card the Telecoms
contribute to the hardware costs due to the potential additional airtime. A portable
solution with a standardized vehicle interface could also enable a faster market
penetration (see US example).
Independent from the two technical solutions, equally promoted by ACEA, it became
very clear that private stakeholder alone could not carry the necessary investments and
running costs for a Pan-European emergency service.
Different stakeholders, however, would only invest in eCall when additional benefits
could be created to cover the cost, both for eCall and hardware/software upgrades to
enable additional profitable services.
As such proposals are high on the agenda of politicians, business case implications needs
to be explored as well:
Positive business case for eCall enhanced solutions?
In this context it needs to be stressed that the industry is looking into a base system,
which is suitable for mass-market introduction, as a non-competitive item.
In case, more enhanced embedded solutions – as they exist today for higher-end
vehicles – are requested (in combination with Telematics services, navigation or other
functionalities) the industry would leave the non-competitive area. eCall would become
a “by-product” while competitions takes place with other non-harmonized or
standardized services.
At the end it is the customer who will pay a higher price with the following result:
An expensive device will make the (small) car less affordable for many customers.

Just to add the full cost on top of the new car price is extremely contra-productive as
significant price increases in the volume car sector will extend the holding time of a car,
lead to reduced sales through delayed customer purchases and has serious consequences
on the competitiveness of the industry, the employees and the environment (new cars
have less emissions than old cars).
The same arguments are valid against reflection of making eCall mandatory through
legislation or even by expanding special validation systems like EuroNCAP.
Due to the significantly higher market prices for commercial vehicles/trucks as well as
“high-end cars” this argument is less valid so that an enhanced system might be more
feasible.
The judgment on an enhanced eCall system, therefore, has to be twofold:
(i) For Cars (volume market)
• Transparent costs and benefits: every party is financing according to their
benefits. All stakeholders should clearly state under which conditions they are
willing to pay a certain share of the costs or a certain amount (depending on the
size of their benefits) to the overall cost of an in-vehicle device (embedded or
portable), e.g.
Cost of enhanced in-vehicle hardware = Fiscal incentives + Automotive back end benefits +
Insurance service benefits + Telecom Airtime benefits + Mobile Phone manufacturers volume
benefit + Customer contribution
• System must be affordable, payment only for applications the customer selects
• Agreement on base reference architecture and communication standards if
possible, global standards preferable
• No additional bureaucracy and cost through certification
• Legal security
� Extremely difficult to achieve due to too many different interests
(ii) For Trucks/high end cars
• Each company to evaluate for themselves how to combine eCall with other
services (one box principle) and create its individual business case
• Agreement on base reference architecture and communication standards if
possible
� Not suitable for mass market introduction
In spite of the efforts of the European Commission to bring the different stakeholders
together many of the conditions related to create a volume market and fast ramp up seem
to be extremely difficult to overcome.

As a final consequence the following can be stated:
1) Embedded base eCall will only be feasible when supported by Member States
2) Mobile phone based solution needs major drive from Telecoms and mobile phone
manufacturers and acceptance by public authorities
3) Embedded enhanced eCall systems either
a) Require agreements between all stakeholders to share cost and benefits but must
allow service differentiation
b) Or are based on individual approaches by OEMs. Some OEMs have already
proven that optional expanded (but individual) service/product packages including
eCall can be sold as a profit when negotiated on an individual basis with other
stakeholders
Based on current experience and reactions from the relevant stakeholders all three
scenarios have a low probability to be realized from a business point of view.

• Annex I
Reduction of Crime
While today a number of luxury vehicles and trucks with valuable cargo can only be
insured when a T&T module is installed, thefts of vehicles in general might be reduced
with higher penetration of T&T modules in vehicles.
Since the German “Maut” OBUs (tolling devices) are being installed the penetration of
T&T systems in trucks has grown substantially. Current discussions focus on the point
whether third parties, police authorities, may use this kind of data in particular to follow
up on crimes.
To install T&T modules in the more “vulnerable” vehicles groups is seen as a positive
contribution.
A general installation in all vehicles, even when using the same components as with eCall
systems, would need certain software adaptations and the set up of an enlarged T&T
common organization to follow up on received calls. Today T&T requirements differ
between the Member States. With a perhaps 1% theft rate vs. 100% hardware penetration
the business case needs to be reviewed and adjusted accordingly. Furthermore, the
tracking and tracing of all European citizens seems to be a “no go” from a political point
of view (data protection, privacy issues). What would be a “paradise” for legal
enforcement agencies is a nightmare for data protection officials.
However, each mobile phone or communication unit in a vehicle today bears the
possibility to be traced. Either the customer does not know or he has accepted it with the
purchase of the device. The Commission has asked the National Data Protection Officers
for a statement 4
Last but not least current systems are retrofitted at various places in the car, a line fitment
requires full vehicle frame integration as otherwise violators can easily locate and destroy
the device.
Under those aspects the potential financial contribution to the cost of a common
hardware/software platform is limited.
“Pay as you use”
Concerning “Pay as you use” the objective is to offer car drivers/owners a usage based
insurance premium for main customer segments and for example of niche segments,
support young people to abstain from driving at critical times (Friday and Saturday
night). While a test in the U.K brought positive results, the responsible French authority
turned down such a proposal for privacy protection reasons. Even with agreement of the
customer to be monitored around the clock, this attempt is not proportional to the targeted
result. The insurance industry, however, is confident that they would be able to influence
4 Three main points to solve the privacy issues are: (1) Ensure that the system will not be logged in
constantly (so no possibility of being tracked by third parties). This is something that it is already agreed
and considered under ETSI standardization. (2) To offer the possibility of deactivate the system to the users
(different than to offer the possibility of not installing it) and provide appropriate information to the user.
(3) Not to include the VIN, as this may link to sensible personal data. We discussed about it in the last
meeting of the subgroup on performance requirements, and it was agreed by PSAPs that they need make,
model and year.

the French Authorities to change their mind, proposing a more balanced quantity/quality
data collection scenario versus insurance needs ratio.
“Pay as you drive” systems could use eCall components like GNSS and crash sensors
while not increasing system costs (data processing being made off-board).
In case these systems would be authorized, a positive impact can be expected for the
insurances.

• Annex II (needs to be discussed further)
List of potential savings related to eCall (0 = neglectable/not possible, X =
small/possible, XX = significant, XXX = huge) (pink field not related to Telematics)
Applications Nomadic
Systems
(smart
phone
/Bluetooth)
Crash
Notification
(ACN)
(accident
happened at
defined
X
(special
device)
Embedded
Systems
Aftermarket
(Retrofit)
X
(crash
sensor)
Embedded Link
to
eCall
Low Cost
Embedded
System
(volume
vehicles)
X
(crash
sensor/airbag)
Up level
Embedded
Systems
(higher
end
vehicles)
Benefits
Insurances
Benefits
Benefits
Telecoms
Benefits
Automotive
Industry
Benefits
Customer
XX X 0 0 XX
location)
eCall (no
SIM, incl.
MSD)
Low cost
0 X XX
X XX 0 0 0 XX
eCall (incl.
dedicated
SIM/ MSD)
Low cost
0 X XX X XX X 0 0 XX
eCall (incl.
MSD/FSD,
commercial
SIM)
Up level
X 0 0 XX XXX X XX X XXX
Tracking & 0 XX X X X XX 0 XX XX
Tracing
(Fleet)
Pay as you
drive
0 0 X X X XX X 0 XX
Not directly relevant for eCall
Speed
Alert/ISA
X X X X X XX 0 X XX
Event
Recorder
0 0 X X 0 XX 0 0 X
EVI 0 X X X 0 X 0 0 0
Alcohol-
Lock
X X X X 0 XX 0 X XX
ESC 0 0 0 X 0 XX 0 XX XX

Clarification Paper
Insurance Sector
April 2006
BC-4 working Group

Clarification Paper – Insurance Sector
Conclusions on open issues addressed by the team
Existing data analysis and costs related to accidents
Existing data analysis:
The eCall data currently available and provided to BC-4 for analysis was first based
on e911 reports from US. Extrapolating the US figures and circumstances of
accidents could be risky for a European business-case since:
o Road infrastructures, vehicles, driving habits, are not the same
o Costs are different
o Costs are not borne by the same stakeholders
Therefore the Commission launched several studies aiming at providing information
on economic and social impacts. The study basically confirmed the US findings and
in the meantime the Commission has initiated an even larger impact study related to
eSafety applications including eCall. Some other States like Germany and the U.K.
have initiated their own analysis.
Even if the quality of the studies was highly appreciated, the BC-4/insurance industry
representatives could not find any evidence of savings for them and would welcome
and are willing to study any relevant information or statistics provided to them.
Costs related to accidents:
As of today, most insurance companies' databases do not contain enough detailed
information on accidents and corresponding claims costs to perform reliable studies
and state if a faster emergency service provision would represent a saving or not:
o circumstances of accidents are in most cases not properly declared by the
customers, a fairly reliable information is only provided when Police is
involved (not very often)
o Analyzing full cost of claims for a certain type or class of accident would
require a long and costly manual analysis and this was not really possible
since there was no budget nor resources at this stage in BC-4.
o The eSafety workgroup on Accident Cause Analysis has finalized its report
and has requested such an in-depth analysis to better identify root causes of
accidents in order to develop effective countermeasures (e.g. vehicle,
infrastructure, regulation related)
10/04/2006 1 Final version

Clarification Paper – Insurance Sector
o in Europe, immediate costs related to personal damage after an accident are
usually borne by public/social security organisations and not by insurance
companies
Insurance sector is willing to study any further statistics or analysis provided to them
but based on today’s experience, eCall would not decrease the total post accident
costs for insurance.
Applications of interest to and/or financial incentives used
today by the Insurance Industry
Whereas a stand-alone eCall solution doesn’t generate a positive business case,
� Stolen Vehicle Tracking or Tracking and Tracing (T&T)
o While today a number of luxury vehicles and trucks with valuable cargo can only
be insured when a Tracking &Tracing module is installed, thefts of vehicles in
general might be reduced with higher penetration of T&T modules in vehicles.
o Since the German “Maut” OBUs (tolling devices) are being installed the
penetration of T&T systems in trucks has grown substantially. Current
discussions focus on the point whether third parties, police authorities, may use
this kind of data in particular to follow up on crimes.
To install T&T modules in the more “vulnerable” vehicles groups is seen as a
positive contribution although to some extent this is already a reasonably common
insurance requirement in certain countries.
Today tracking requirements differ between the Member States. Furthermore, the
tracking and tracing of all European citizens will certainly require a consensus from a
political point of view (data protection, privacy issues). What would be an Eldorado
for legal enforcement agencies is a nightmare for data protection officials and many
consumer groups. Consideration also needs to be given to any cross-borde
implications of tracking. It is important to remember hat most of the concurrent
tracking activity relates to tracking of a stolen vehicle and not an individual.
However, each mobile phone or communication unit in a vehicle today has the
possibility to be traced. Either the customer does not know or he has accepted it with
the purchase of the device. The Commission has asked the National Data Protection
Officers for a statement, results are not yet published.
10/04/2006 2 Final version

Clarification Paper – Insurance Sector
Insurance company attitudes and practices in relation to T&T systems varies from
company to company and country to country. In certain circumstances the company
may offer a discount for the premium but for high risk vehicles the fitting of a T&T
system may be compulsory requirement.
� Pay Per Use insurance
o Concerning “Pay per Use” the objective is to offer car drivers/owners a usage
based insurance premium for main customer segment and for example of niche
segments, support young people to abstain from driving at critical times (Friday
and Saturday night).
o Such systems could use eCall components like GNSS, data transmission and
crash sensors while not substantially increasing cost of OBU (data processing
being made off-board).
Some local privacy issues still to be addressed but a positive impact can be expected for
the insurances.
Insurance sectors requirements related to eCall
Access to eCall data, how could this be used?
o Post accident reports showing strength and direction of impact could be of
interest helping settle the claims faster and better but would require a major
change in insurance IT systems and processes. Therefore, further studies are
needed to assess the relevance of event recorders (privacy issues to be addressed
as well)
o A mobile device based solution (with Bluetooth link) has been envisaged and
described by some stakeholders. Even if this solution can be attractive from
certain points of view, it cannot be supported by the Insurance industry since no
data transmission is possible unless the user has properly connected his mobile
phone with the vehicle, this excluding automatically core Insurance applications
like Stolen Vehicle Tracking or Pay Per Use.
Benefits of eCall to insurance companies
What would an improved response time of 50% mean for the insurance industry?
10/04/2006 3 Final version

Conclusion
Clarification Paper – Insurance Sector
o an early statement could be “a time reduction of 50% doesn’t represent any
concrete benefit”
o “First to be notified” could represent a benefit for better claims handling
o One of the most important factors in insurance risk assessment and premium
calculation is that relating to past trends in claims costs. There is no failsafe
way to assess accurately the future effects of eCall on individual customer
segments and on overall claims costs
o Over time any claims cost savings that may be made as a result of eCall will
inevitably be reflected in the premiums charged to individual insurance
customers
o It is impossible to imagine why it would be appropriate for insurers to finance
fitting of eCall when there are clearly other stakeholders (including society as
a whole) who would derive greater benefit from this initiative
There is no open way to insurance incentives based on future claims history
which as of now cannot be appraised in a proper way. In any case, it would be
impossible to imagine how it could be appropriate for insurers to finance fitting
of eCall devices. Where society as a whole is the main beneficiary, it is
inappropriate to load financial costs of developing this system on to the
insurance sector.
eCall clearly has the potential to assist in the rapid identification of a serious road
accident and its location enabling better prioritizing and dispatch of the relevant
emergency services.
As the premiums insurers need to charge today have to reflect the known
claims costs patterns it is impossible to apply discounts for eCall in the anticipation of
any future savings in claims cost. Indeed the costs for funding eCall would have to be
added to premiums rather than discounted from premiums.
It is important that any eCall developments remain open enough to take
account of potential developments across the wider vehicle Telematics arena.…
10/04/2006 4 Final version

ANNEX III –
COMMISSION
RECOMMENDATION ON
SAFE AND EFFICIENT IN-
VEHICLE INFORMATION
AND COMMUNICATION
SYSTEMS: UPDATE OF THE
EUROPEAN STATEMENT OF
PRINCIPLES ON HUMAN
MACHINE INTERFACE
1.

COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES
Brussels, 22.12.2006
C(2006) 7125 final
COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION
of 22 December 2006
on safe and efficient in-vehicle information and communication systems:
Update of the European Statement of Principles on human machine interface
EN EN

COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION
of 22 December 2006
on safe and efficient in-vehicle information and communication systems:
Update of the European Statement of Principles on human machine interface
THE COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES,
Having regard to the Treaty establishing the European Community, and in particular Article
211 thereof,
(1) Whereas the Commission adopted a Recommendation C(1999) 4786 on safe and
efficient in-vehicle information and communication systems on 21 December 1999
and whereas the update of this Recommendation is essential to assure safe use of the
in-vehicle information systems, taking into account the technological progress;
(2) Whereas further work was carried out by an expert group appointed by the
Commission after the publication of the Commission Recommendation, on the
expansion of the original principles, explaining in more detail each principle,
describing the rationale and giving examples of good practices as well as on the
verification procedures, this report on the expansion of principles being published in
July 2001;
(3) Whereas the Commission adopted a Communication on Information and
Communication Technologies for safe and intelligent vehicles on 15 September 2003,
COM (2003) 542 final, including recommendations for human machine interface as
one of the priority actions;
(4) Whereas the joint industry-public sector eSafety Forum established a Working Group
on human machine interface, which produced its final report in February 2005,
confirming the necessity of updating the 1999 Recommendation;
(5) Whereas the Commission adopted a Communication (COM (2006) 59 final) on the
i2010 Intelligent Car Initiative of 15 February 2006, and announced this
Recommendation as one of the priority actions,
PRESENTS THE UPDATE OF THE 1999 RECOMMENDATION ON HUMAN MACHINE
INTERFACE
This Recommendation asks all involved parties, such as the industry, professional
organisations related to transport to adhere to the updated European Statement of Principles,
and the Member States to monitor their application and use. The updated European Statement
of Principles (version 2006) summarises the essential safe design and use aspects to be
considered for the human machine interface (HMI) for in-vehicle information and
communication systems. This 2006 Recommendation and its Annex attached replace the
previous 1999 Recommendation and Annex,
EN 2 EN

AND HEREBY RECOMMENDS:
1. The European vehicle manufacturing and supply industries, which design and/or
provide and/or fit in-vehicle information and communication systems, whether
original equipment providers or after sales system providers, including importers and
nomadic devices suppliers, should comply with the attached updated European
Statement of Principles and should enter into a voluntary agreement on this matter
within a period of nine months from the publication of this Recommendation;
2. Professional organisations related to transport (e.g. transport companies, vehicle
rental companies) should commit to these principles within the same time frame;
3. Member States should monitor activities linked to HMI, disseminate the
updated version of the statement of principles towards all relevant stakeholders,
encourage them to adhere to these Principles. Where appropriate, they should
discuss and co-ordinate their actions through the Commission, the eSafety Forum or
other appropriate forums (nomadic devices forum etc);
Member States should perform a continuous evaluation and monitoring of the impact
of the European Statement of Principles of 2006 and report to the Commission about
the dissemination activities carried out as well as the results of the application of the
2006 Principles within a period of 18 months from their publication.
Done at Brussels, 22 December 2006
For the Commission
Viviane REDING
Member of the Commission
EN 3 EN

ANNEX
UPDATED VERSION OF THE EUROPEAN STATEMENT OF PRINCIPLES ON HUMAN MACHINE
INTERFACE (HMI) FOR IN–VEHICLE INFORMATION AND COMMUNICATION SYSTEMS
1. DEFINITION AND OBJECTIVES
This statement of principles summarises essential safety aspects to be considered for the
Human Machine Interface (HMI) for in-vehicle information and communication systems.
This updated text version 2006 replaces the previous one elaborated in 1999.
These principles promote the introduction of well designed systems into the market, and by
taking into account both the potential benefits and associated risks they do not prevent
innovation of the industry.
These principles presume that those applying them have technical knowledge of the products
as well as access to resources necessary to apply the principles in designing these systems.
Considering that the driver’s primary task is the safe control of the vehicle in a complex and
dynamic traffic environment, the primary goal of the principles is to fulfil this
requirement.
These principles also take into account the capabilities and constraints of all stakeholders in
their efforts in the design, installation and use of in-vehicle information and communications
systems. They are applicable to the development process, addressing issues like complexity,
product costs and time to market, and in particular take into account small system
manufacturers. Since the driver finally decides whether (s)he buys and uses e.g. an integrated
navigation system, a nomadic device or a paper map, the intention is to promote a good
HMI design rather than prohibit the inclusion of some functionalities by simplistic
pass/fail criteria.
The principles are not a substitute for any current regulations and standards, which
should always be taken into consideration. These principles can be reinforced by
national legislation or by individual companies. These principles constitute the
minimum set of requirements to be applied.
2. SCOPE
These principles apply primarily to in-vehicle information and communication systems
intended for use by the driver while the vehicle is in motion, for example navigation systems,
mobile phones and traffic and travel information systems (TTI). Due to a lack of
comprehensive research results and scientific proof, they are not intended to apply to systems
that are voice controlled or to systems providing vehicle braking stabilization (such as ABS
and ESP) or to system functionality providing information, warnings or support that requires
immediate driver action (e.g. Collision Mitigation Systems, Night vision) sometimes referred
to as Advanced Driver Assistance Systems (ADAS). ADAS are fundamentally different and
require additional considerations in terms of Human Machine Interface. However, some of the
principles may provide assistance in designing ADAS.
The principles apply to all parts and aspects of all systems that are intended for interface with
the driver while driving and also to certain other components. They also have provisions for
EN 4 EN

systems and their functionality that should not be used while driving. In these principles,
”system” refers to the functions and parts, such as displays and controls, which constitute the
interface between the in-vehicle system and the driver. The scope of the principles excludes
head-up displays and aspects not related to HMI, such as the electrical characteristics,
material properties and legal aspects not related to safe use. Some principles make a
distinction between system use “while driving” (also called “while the vehicle is in motion”)
and other use. Where no distinction is made, the principles refer only to system use by the
driver while driving.
The principles apply specifically to vehicles of class M and N 1 . The principles apply to both
portable and permanently installed systems. The principles are intended to apply to systems
and functionalities in OEM- , after-market-, and nomadic systems. The principles apply to
HMI functionality independent of the degree of integration between systems. In general, a
number of industries and organisations are involved in designing, producing and providing
parts of such systems and the associated services, including, for example:
• Vehicle manufacturers offering in-vehicle devices with information and communication
functionality;
• After-market system and service producers;
• Providers of nomadic devices, intended to be used by a driver while driving;
• Manufacturers of parts enabling the use of nomadic devices by the driver while driving
(e.g. cradles, interfaces and connectors);
• Service providers including software providers or broadcasters of information meant to be
used by the driver while driving, e.g. traffic, travel and navigation information, radio
programmes with traffic information.
3. EXISTING PROVISIONS
The principles are not a substitute for regulations and standards and these should always be
taken note of and used.
All standards are subject to revision, and users of this statement of principles should apply the
most recent editions of the standards indicated here.
Applicable EC Directives with their subsequent amendments include:
• On the field of vision of motor vehicle drivers: Commission Directive 90/630/EEC of 30
October 1990 2 ;
• The interior fittings of motor vehicles (interior parts of the passenger compartment other
than the interior rear-view mirrors, layout of controls, the roof or sliding roof, the backrest
and rear part of seats): Council Directive 74/60/EEC of 17 December 1973 3 ;
1
Classification and definition of power-driven vehicles and trailers: Council Directive 70/156/EEC (as
amended by 92/53/EEC), annex 2.
2
OJ L 341, 6.12.1990, p. 20.
EN 5 EN

• The interior fittings of motor vehicles (identification of controls, tell tales and indicators):
Council Directive 78/316/EEC of 21 December 1977 4 ;
• Council Resolution of 17 December 1998 5 (4) on operating instructions for technical
consumer goods;
• Council Directive 92/59/EEC of 29 June 1992 on general product safety 6
Economic Committee for Europe (UN/ECE) regulations which are recognised by the
Community after its adhesion to the Revised Agreement of 1958 (see Council Decision
97/836/EC of 27.11.97:
• ECE-R21 of 01 December 1971
• 71/127/EEC – Rearward field of view
• 77/649/EEC – Field of vision of motor vehicles
Standards and standard documents in preparation implicitly referred to in the principles are:
• ISO 3958 Road vehicles – Passenger car driver hand control reach
• ISO (DIS) 11429 Ergonomics – System danger and non-danger signals with sounds and
lights.
• ISO 4513 (2003) Road vehicles - Visibility. Method for establishment of eyellipse for
driver's eye location
• ISO 15008 (2003): “Road vehicles – Ergonomic aspects of transport information and
control systems – Specifications and compliance procedures for in-vehicle visual
presentation”.
• ISO 15005 (2002): “Road vehicles – Ergonomic aspects of transport information and
control systems – Dialogue Management principles and compliance procedures”
• ISO 17287 (2003): “Road vehicles – Ergonomic aspects of transport information and
control systems - Procedure for assessing suitability for use while driving”.
• ISO 4040 (2001): “Road vehicles - passenger cars - location of hand controls, indicators
and tell-tales”.
• ISO 15006 (2004): Road vehicles – Ergonomic aspects of transport information and
control systems - Specifications and compliance procedures for in-vehicle auditory
presentation.
3 OJ L 38, 11.2.1974, p. 2.
4 OJ L 81, 28.3.1978, p. 3.
5 OJ C 411, 31.12.1998, p. 24.
6 OJ L 228, 11.8.1992, p. 24.
EN 6 EN

• ISO/TS16951 (2004): Road Vehicles – Ergonomic aspects of transport information and
control systems - Procedure for determining priority of on-board messages presented to
drivers.
• ISO 15007-1 (2002): Road vehicles – Measurement of driver visual behaviour with respect
to transport information and control systems – Part 1: Definitions & parameters.
• ISO TS 15007-2 (2001): Road vehicles – Measurement of driver visual behaviour with
respect to transport information and control systems – Part 2: Equipment and procedures.
• ISO FDIS 16673: Road vehicles – Ergonomic aspects of transport information and control
systems - Occlusion method to assess visual distraction
• ISO 2575 (2004) – Road Vehicles – Symbols for Controls, Indications and Telltales
• ISO 7000 (2004) – Graphical symbols for use on equipment - Index and synopsis
4. EUROPEAN STATEMENT OF PRINCIPLES ON THE DESIGN OF HUMAN-MACHINE
INTERFACE (ESOP 2006)
4.1. Stakeholders involved in system design and construction
As described in the scope, the principles are intended to apply to systems and functionalities
in OEM-, after-market-, and nomadic (portable) systems. In general, a number of
organisations are involved designing, producing and providing elements of such systems and
devices, including, for example:
• Vehicle manufacturers offering in-vehicle devices with information and communication
functionality;
• After-market system and services producers;
• Providers of nomadic devices, intended to be used by a driver while driving;
• Manufacturers of parts enabling the use of nomadic devices by the driver while driving
(e.g. cradles, interfaces and connectors);
• Service providers including software providers or broadcasters of information meant to be
used by the driver while driving, e.g. traffic, travel and navigation information, radio
programmes with traffic information.
Where systems are provided by a vehicle manufacturer (OEM) it is clear that the
manufacturer is responsible for the overall design. In other cases, the “Product-Responsible
Organisation” will include the organisation introducing a product or functionality into the
market, part or all of which may have been designed and produced by different parties.
Consequently the responsibility may often be shared between different organizations. Where
the term “manufacturer” is used in the following text, this may include several productresponsible
organisations.
Generally, it will be clear where the responsibility lies, among manufacturers, suppliers and
installers, of applying the principles. Where the responsibility rests with more than one party,
EN 7 EN

those parties are encouraged to use the principles as a starting point to explicitly confirm their
respective roles.
The responsibilities of the driver related to safe behaviour while driving and interacting with
these systems remain unchanged.
4.2. General comments
The need for special skills or training and the suitability of a system for different driver
groups is a matter of definition by the manufacturers. Such definitions should be taken into
account when considering the application of the principles to a system’s HMI.
Where the manufacturer’s intention has been clearly stated (such that the driver can
reasonably be expected to be aware of it) and the driver subsequently uses the system in a
way, which is not intended by the manufacturer, this can be considered as misuse.
The current state of scientific development is not sufficient to link robustly compliance
criteria with safety for all the principles. That‘s why all principles are not linked
systematically to standards or already defined and accepted criteria.
Systems designed in accordance with the principles are generally expected to be safer than
those that do not take account of them. However, it may be possible to meet the overall design
goals even if one or more principles are violated.
4.3. Principles
Each principle is followed by an elaboration with the following sections:
Explanation: includes some rationale and further explanation for the principle.
Examples: “Good” and “Bad” examples provide additional explanation concerning
implementation of the principle.
Application: describes which specific systems or HMI functionality are being addressed by
the principle as a necessary first step in determining whether a particular system’s HMI is in
accordance with the principle.
Verification: provides some information to address the question of whether a system is in
accordance with a principle. Where possible, a suitable method is outlined and interpretation
of the resulting metric is given:
• Where the result can be expressed as “Yes/No” this indicates the availability of a clear
identification of compliance with a principle;
• In other cases the approach/methods identified do not lead to simple pass/fail criteria but
offer the opportunity of increased optimisation of the HMI;
• If regulations are addressed the Base-Directive is mentioned. The Product-responsible
organisation has to comply with the current version of this directive.
References: provide additional information which may be of interest in the context of the
respective principle.
EN 8 EN

Since international standards are subject to revision, the version referred to is mentioned.
Standards under revision and draft ISO standards are sometimes given in order to provide
additional information for system designers.
4.3.1. Overall design principles
4.3.1.1. Design goal I
The system supports the driver and does not give rise to potentially hazardous behaviour by
the driver or other road users.
Explanation:
An important overall requirement can be simply stated as “Do no harm”. This means that the
system should enhance or at least not reduce road safety. The approach taken by this
document is to systematically guide a system’s designer by principles addressing design
relevant aspects like installation, information presentation or interface. This is because the
overall effects may not be entirely predictable or measurable since they depend not only on
the system design but also on the individual driver and the driving task/traffic situation.
Systems which are not designed with this principle in mind are unlikely to be in accordance
with the other principles.
4.3.1.2. Design goal II
The allocation of driver attention while interacting with system displays and controls remains
compatible with the attentional demand of the driving situation.
Explanation:
The driver has a limited but variable attentional resource and physical capacity which can be
distributed dynamically by the driver between tasks. The resources activated by the driver
depend not only on personal factors but may also vary according to his motivation and state.
Interfaces (including visual, tactile and auditory) can induce both physical and cognitive
workload.
The relevant tasks addressed in this overall design goal are:
the task of driving (controlling the vehicle, participating in traffic flow and reaching a
destination). This has an associated attentional demand which varies with the driving
situation;
the task of interacting with system displays and controls. Except for very simple systems, the
attentional demand of this task will also vary as the system is used.
Reaching this goal requires compatibility between the two tasks and this means that the
attentional demand of the system does not cause the available resource to be less than that
required to attend properly to the prevailing driving task. This means that the driver needs to
be able to anticipate the attentional demand associated with both the driving task and
secondary tasks.
EN 9 EN

The concept of compatibility is preferable compared with a limit on the total amount of
interface because:
The concept of task is controversial since the same task can vary substantially in terms of its
parameters e.g. duration; moreover a suitable definition of task is not available;
Dependent on the motivation and state of the driver, an interface with displays and controls
may have a different effect; this is due to the fact that less workload is not necessarily better;
The relation between the components of interface (complexity, intensity, duration etc.),
workload and driving performance is not well enough understood.
Systems which are designed in accordance with the ESoP should be such that the attentional
demand of the system can be modified by the driver by choosing to interact (or not), and by
choosing when and how to interact. This also means that the driver can anticipate the
attentional demand of the interface with the system.
4.3.1.3. Design goal III
The system does not distract or visually entertain the driver.
Explanation:
The aim of this principle is to ensure that the driver is distracted as little as possible by the use
of a driver information or communication system while driving such that his/her ability to be
in full control of the vehicle is not compromised. This Design Goal is also formulated to
highlight the special importance of avoiding distraction caused by visual entertainment.
Visual entertainment may occur by visually displaying images which are attractive (i.e. likely
to catch the attention) because of their form or content. It is of particular relevance in the
driving context because of the importance of vision for safe driving.
4.3.1.4. Design goal IV
The system does not present information to the driver which results in potentially hazardous
behaviour by the driver or other road users.
Explanation:
The content of the information should not encourage the driver to engage in behaviour which
may increase the risk of an accident while driving. A hazardous behaviour may influence
other road user behaviour. An example could be the display of a race-driving-strategy in order
to achieve a maximum speed while cornering.
Other road users may be concerned if the hazardous behaviour of the driver occurs when
he/she is interacting with them, as well as if the system generates signals perceptible from the
exterior which may induce erroneous interpretation by other road users, and possibly
dangerous manoeuvres.
4.3.1.5. Design goal V
Interfaces and interface with systems intended to be used in combination by the driver while
the vehicle is in motion are consistent and compatible.
EN 10 EN

Explanation:
All HMI components of individual systems should be designed according to principles for
single systems and this will give a minimum level of consistency. However, consistency can
still be an issue between individual well-designed products.
System use “in combination” occurs when more than one system is used to achieve a desired
result. This includes parallel use (i.e. use of more than one system at the same time) and serial
use when the systems are used one after another. So, when designing a system for use in
combination with another (possibly pre-existing system), account should be taken of the
existing system. When the functionality is completely different, it may be good design to have
a different HMI to avoid confusion.
Consistency involves for example the following design issues:
• Use of common terminology between systems; e.g. “slow traffic”, “next junction”;
• Use of words and/or use of icons to represent concepts or functions; e.g. “Help”, “Enter”;
• Use of colours, icons, sounds, labels (to optimise a balance between similarity and
differentiation);
• Physical dialogue channel issues; e.g. single/double-click, timing of response and timeouts,
mode of feedback e.g. visual, auditory, tactile (depending on functionality feedback
should be different in order to avoid misinterpretation);
• Grouping of concepts and similar menu structures (for related functionalities);
• Overall design of dialogue and order of concepts.
4.3.2. Installation principles
4.3.2.1. Installation principle I
The system should be located and securely fitted in accordance with relevant regulations,
standards and manufacturers instructions for installing the system in vehicles.
Explanation:
Manufacturers design products (e.g. systems, holders, functionalities) for an intended use. If
suitable means for correct installation (e.g. a holder) are not provided or the manufacturer’s
installation instructions are not followed, this may cause the system to be used by the driver in
a way which was not intended by the manufacturer, and this could have safety consequences.
The system should be located (i.e. physically positioned) within the vehicle during use by the
driver in the following ways:
• Fixed within the vehicle;
• Moveable over a pre-determined range (for systems that have an adjustable position by
means of cable, stalk or bracket, for example);
EN 11 EN

• Holder mounted with the intention that the system is used within the holder.
Special attention should be given to the installation of systems in terms of passive safety in
order to avoid an increased risk of injury in case of a vehicle crash.
Examples:
Good: A hands-free mobile phone fitted fully in accordance with all required standards,
regulations and manufacturers instructions.
Bad: A traffic information display fixed to the dashboard with a poor quality temporary
fastening (such as adhesive tape) rather than the holder recommended by the manufacturer.
Applicability:
The principle applies to all in-vehicle systems, and is very important to be considered for
after-market systems and nomadic devices.
Verification/Applicable methods:
This principle requires the location and fitting of systems to be undertaken in accordance
with:
• Interior fittings of motor vehicles (Council Directive 74/60/EEC of 17 December 1973,
ECE-R21 of 01 December 1971 and Council Directive 78/316/EEC of 21 December 1977)
• Instructions provided by the product-responsible organisation (i.e. the formal written
instructions provided by the manufacturer)
• Inspection whether the relevant requirements have been taken into account.
Result = Yes/No.
References:
• ISO 4040 (2001) - location of hand controls, indicators and tell-tales.
4.3.2.2. Installation principle II
No part of the system should obstruct the driver's view of the road scene.
Explanation:
Successful performance of the driving task is mainly based on the acquisition of visual
information about the local road and traffic environment. Consequently, construction
regulations ensure that each road vehicle provides the driver with an adequate external field of
view out of the vehicle from the driver’s seat. Additional systems must not compromise this
basic design provision. This principle is likely to be particularly important for the installation
of after-market and nomadic systems.
The "driver’s view" is the mandatory minimum requirement in accordance with EEC
Regulations. It should be interpreted as pertaining to the forward view directly through the
windscreen, side views and rear view either directly or indirectly.
EN 12 EN

If the physical position of a component of the system can be modified by the driver and can
(as part of its intended range of movement) obstruct the driver’s vision, then the driver should
be informed, through the system instructions (see section 6) about the use as intended by the
manufacturer. If no such information is provided to the driver, then the principle should apply
throughout the range of adjustment of the system or its component.
Examples:
Good: A display mounted within the instrument panel such that it can be easily viewed by the
driver but does not interfere with the driver field of view requirements.
Bad: A display mounted on a long flexible stalk from the upper surface of the instrument
panel which can be adjusted such that the display obscures a substantial part of the external
road scene.
Applicability:
The principle applies to all in-vehicle systems, and is very important to be considered for
after-market systems and nomadic devices. It does not apply to head-up displays.
Verification/Applicable methods:
When installed in a vehicle no part of the system should be in a physical position such that the
driver’s view of the road scene is obstructed to such an extent that the Regulations cannot be
complied with.
A system is in compliance with this principle if all parts of it are correctly located taking into
account:
• 71/127/EEC - Rearward field of view
• 77/649/EEC - Field of vision of motor vehicles
Verification is by inspection or by measurement.
Result = Yes/No.
References:
No additional references.
4.3.2.3. Installation principle III
The system should not obstruct vehicle controls and displays required for the primary driving
task.
Explanation:
The aim of this principle is to ensure that the driver's ability to use mandatory displays and
controls and other displays and controls required for the primary driving task is not
compromised by the physical presence of a system (such as a display). This ensures that the
driver's ability to be in full control of the vehicle is not affected by installation of the system.
EN 13 EN

Obstruction of controls in this context means to prevent operation, or render significantly
more difficult to identify, reach and/or operate the relevant controls throughout their intended
range of movement.
Obstruction of displays in this context means to render not visible some portion (any portion)
of the relevant displays from the drivers’ normal seating position.
The required controls and displays are those relevant for undertaking the primary driving task
and all those which are mandatory.
Required controls include: accelerator, brake, (clutch, if fitted), steering wheel, gear changer,
parking brake, horn, light switches, turn indicators, washers and wipers (all modes and
speeds), hazard flashers, de-mister controls.
Required displays include: the speedometer, all warning lights, mandatory control labels and
mandatory tell-tales.
Obstruction or impairment of other controls and displays should be balanced against the
additional benefits provided by the system.
Examples:
Good: A route-guidance display integrated into the dashboard in a high central position which
does not obstruct any other displays or controls.
Bad:
An after-market route guidance system which obstructs the light switches;
A display that covers the hazard flasher control
An additional control on the exterior of the steering wheel rim which could make the steering
wheel more difficult to use during cornering.
Applicability:
The principle applies to all in-vehicle systems, and is very important to be considered for
after-market systems and nomadic devices.
Verification/Applicable methods:
Verification is by inspection whether the driver can see all displays and controls required for
the primary driving task.
Result = Yes/No.
References:
• ISO 4513 (2003) Road Vehicle – Visibility, method for establishment of eyellipse for
driver’s eye location
EN 14 EN

4.3.2.4. Installation principle IV
Visual displays should be positioned as close as practicable to the driver's normal line of
sight
Explanation:
For a driver to be in full control of the vehicle and aware of the dynamic road scene there is a
broad consensus that, apart from brief glances at mirrors or instrumentation, the driver’s gaze
should be directed towards the road scene. Visual displays positioned close to the normal line
of sight reduce the total eyes-off-the-road time relative to those which are positioned further
away and maximises the possibility for a driver to use peripheral vision to monitor the road
scene for major developments while looking at a display. The further away from the driver’s
normal line of sight the display is positioned, the more difficult it is to obtain information and
the greater the possible impact on driving performance.
It is recommended that the most important or safety critical information be closest to the
normal line of sight.
This principle therefore requires the designer/installer to make an explicit, but essentially
qualitative, trade-off between practicability and closeness. Important factors include:
• The requirement not to obstruct the road scene (see principle 4.3.2.2);
• The requirement not to obstruct other controls or displays (see principle 4.3.2.3);
• The requirement that the display should not itself be substantially obstructed by, for
example, controls such as the steering wheel or gear change lever.
In particular for passenger cars it is recommended that displays containing information
relevant for driving and all displays requiring long sequences of interface be placed within
approximately 30° downward viewing angle of the driver’s normal forward view. For a
discussion on long sequences of interface refer to principle 4.3.4.2.
Examples:
Good: A display for navigation in a passenger car is installed within approximately 30°
downward viewing angle because the information is related to driving.
Bad: A display for communication, e.g. of a Personal Digital Assistant (PDA) or Phone, is
positioned near the gear lever between the front seats in a passenger car in spite of long
sequences of interfaces necessary to enter or search for a telephone number.
Applicability:
The principle applies to all in-vehicle systems equipped with visual displays and for situations
of use that involve forward vision. Displays that support specific driving conditions such as
reversing are a separate issue.
Verification/Applicable methods:
EN 15 EN

In general, the aim should be the best compromise in allocation of dashboard space, which
can be assessed by designers and ergonomics specialists.
References:
• ISO 4513 (2003) Road Vehicle – Visibility, method for establishment of eyellipse for
driver’s eye location.
4.3.2.5. Installation principle V
Visual displays should be designed and installed to avoid glare and reflections.
Explanation:
Glare and reflections that are likely to make it more difficult to extract information from the
display may cause distraction from the driving task or other tasks performed while driving.
This is likely to lead to increased driver frustration and annoyance and may evoke behavioural
adaptations such as squinting, closing of the eyes for brief periods and head movements to
obtain a more comfortable view. All of these effects are likely to reduce driver comfort and,
therefore, may compromise road safety to some extent.
Glare is the distracting (and potentially disabling) effect of bright light in an otherwise
relatively dark scene which interferes with visual attention and selection. In the in-vehicle
context, this can occur in a number of ways:
External light (usually sunlight) falls on the visual display reducing display contrast and
makes the information on the screen more difficult to see from the driver’s normal viewing
position;
The display is itself too bright and causes distraction from the road scene and other in-vehicle
displays and controls. This is most likely to be apparent to the driver in low ambient light
conditions.
Reflection is the generation of a secondary image of an object as a result of light from the
object bouncing off intermediate surfaces. This is relevant in a number of ways:
Light from a light emitting display travels to another surface (or via several surfaces)
producing a secondary image of the display screen; for example, on the windscreen. This is
most likely to be perceived by the driver when there is high contrast between the secondary
image and its background, such as against the windscreen during darkness;
Light from an external source (e.g. the sun, streetlights, or other bright objects) is reflected by
the display surface into the driver’s eyes (see also glare above).
The effects should be considered during design and installation process. Issues that could be
considered include provision of a (manual or automatic) display brightness control, choice of
display technology, choice of display surface texture and finish, choice of colour and gloss of
surfaces being reflected in the display surface, choice of image polarity, sighting of the
display and adjustability, the use of a recess or cowl.
Examples:
EN 16 EN

Good: A screen with an automatic brightness control which does not produce secondary
images on the vehicle’s glass and which has a display front surface which can be easily read
under all normal lighting conditions.
Bad: A display which is so bright at night that it is significant in the driver’s peripheral vision
when looking at the forward road-scene and whose information is difficult to read in sunlight
because the contrast is so low.
Applicability:
The principle applies to all in-vehicle information and communication systems equipped with
visual displays.
Verification/Applicable methods:
The verification should be based upon procedures to determine glare and reflections. Specific
criteria depend on the vehicle concept.
References:
• ISO 15008 (2003): Road vehicles – ergonomic aspects of transport information and control
systems – specification and compliance procedures for in-vehicle visual presentation.
4.3.3. Information presentation principles
4.3.3.1. Information presentation principle I
Visually displayed information presented at any one time by the system should be designed
such that the driver is able to assimilate the relevant information with a few glances which
are brief enough not to adversely affect driving.
Explanation:
Visual processing by the driver to take account of the traffic environment forms the basis for
completion of vehicle control and manoeuvring tasks. Therefore, demand to detect and
acquire visually presented relevant information at any one time should be limited. Increasing
the frequency and/or duration of glances required to detect and acquire visually displayed
information may increase the risk for potentially dangerous traffic situations caused by driver
preoccupation with non-primary driving-related tasks. Relevant information is the portion of
all visually displayed information sought by the driver to satisfy a particular need.
Examples:
Good: Easily legible and well structured graphics on a well positioned visual display which
allows identification of the relevant menu item with one single glance of 1 second.
Bad: A navigation system which only offers support by a visual display rich in detail, which
needs full and lengthy attention of the driver to identify a target on a moving map.
Applicability:
The principle applies to all in-vehicle information and communication systems with visual
displays presenting information intended to be viewed by the driver while driving.
EN 17 EN

Verification/Applicable methods:
Compare design alternatives for the presentation of information: the number and duration of
glances needed to detect and acquire relevant information presented at a time should be
minimized.
Result: Optimized design of a single screen.
References:
• ISO 15007-1 (2002): Road vehicles – Measurement of driver visual behaviour with respect
to transport information and control systems – Part 1: Definitions & parameters.
• ISO TS 15007-2 (2001): Road vehicles – Measurement of driver visual behaviour with
respect to transport information and control systems – Part 2: Equipment and procedures.
• ISO 15008 (2003): Road vehicles – ergonomic aspects of transport information and control
systems – specification and compliance procedures for in-vehicle visual presentation.
• ISO FDIS 16673: Road vehicles – ergonomic aspects of transport information and control
systems - Occlusion method to assess visual distraction
Additional Methods/Scales are under development in ISO TC22/SC13/WG8 for
quantification of visual distraction; e.g. revision of ISO 15008, display legibility and
TC22/SC13/WG8/AWI on the Lane Change Test, method to measure driver distraction.
4.3.3.2. Information presentation principle II
Internationally and/or nationally agreed standards relating to legibility, audibility, icons,
symbols, words, acronyms and/or abbreviations should be used.
Explanation:
Standards related to legibility, audibility and symbols prescribe geometrical and/or physical
characteristics for information which is displayed visually and/or aurally and are intended to
give information the highest probability of being easily comprehended by drivers in a large
range of circumstances and environments.
The continuously increasing number of functions available to the driver makes it necessary to
adopt the most common practice in the selection of symbols, icons, abbreviations and words
for function identification.
Examples:
Good: Road signs are used on in-vehicle displays to augment traffic information
Bad: Symbols and icons used in a navigation system are unique to a particular manufacturer
and are not comprehended by a majority of drivers.
Applicability:
The principle applies to all cues used to identify functionality and functions provided by
information or communication systems in a vehicle.
EN 18 EN

Verification/Applicable methods:
Verification by inspection, whether internationally and/or nationally agreed standards relating
to legibility, audibility, icons, symbols, words, acronyms and/or abbreviations are used, taking
into account the main relevant standards.
Result = Yes/No.
References:
• ISO 15008 (2003) - Road Vehicles - Traffic Information and Control Systems (TICS) -
Ergonomic Aspects of In-Vehicle Information Presentation (under revision)
• ISO15006 (2004) - Road Vehicles - Traffic Information and Control Systems (TICS) -
Auditory Presentation of Information
• ISO 2575 (2004) - Road Vehicles - Symbols for Controls, Indications and Telltales
• ISO 7000 (2004) - Graphical symbols for use on equipment — Index and synopsis
4.3.3.3. Information presentation principle III
Information relevant to the driving task should be accurate and provided in a timely manner.
Explanation:
Information relevant to the driving task should be provided to the driver at the most
appropriate moment and be sufficiently accurate to assist the driver in dealing adequately with
the situation.
The driving task requires the driver to continuously monitor the environment to select relevant
stimuli and to concentrate and focus attention on those stimuli which require an adjustment of
his/her behaviour. This adjustment depends on which action is most suitable for the situation
and on the goals and priorities of the driver. The actions may involve changing speed,
changing lane, warning others, etc.
Correctly timed and accurate information reduces uncertainty by giving valid and clear
answers to questions such as: "What?" "When?" "Where?" "For how long?" etc. The
requirement of accuracy and timing of information also implies that it is necessary for the
displayed message to match the driver's judgement of the environment. Therefore,
information should not conflict with, for instance, road signs. Systems providing ill-timed
and/or incorrect information may create safety critical driver distraction and frustration.
Examples:
Good: The distance to the next manoeuvre is provided exactly at the point where the driver
needs to know if a manoeuvre is to be undertaken and which manoeuvre it should be.
Bad: Direction instructions from a navigation system are displayed well after the manoeuvre
needs to be performed.
Applicability:
EN 19 EN

The principle applies to all auditory and visual time-critical information from information and
communication systems.
Verification/Applicable methods:
Verification by inspection, whether the information provided by the system is sufficiently
correct and presented at the expected point of time.
Result: Yes / No.
References:
No additional references.
4.3.3.4. Information presentation principle IV
Information with higher safety relevance should be given higher priority.
Explanation:
The driver may need to perceive and act on safety-relevant information within a short
timescale. Such information therefore needs to be presented as rapidly as possible and should
not be delayed by more routine information.
Information priority from the point of view of safety-relevance depends on its urgency and
criticality (i.e. severity of the consequences if the information is not acted upon). These
factors, in turn, also depend on the driving situation as explained in ISO/TS 16951. Where
information is generated off-board (from the roadside or remote system) prioritisation cannot
take account of the driving situation and only a more generic priority allocation is possible.
Where information is derived from autonomous vehicle systems, or where external and onboard
information can be combined, the possibility of appreciating the driving situation exists
and message priority can be refined.
For off-board information, the dynamic information providers (service providers) should
implement an information dissemination strategy which ensures - apart from currency and
reliability - transmission priority to messages with highest importance. In-vehicle systems
need to recognise incoming safety-relevant messages and treat them accordingly.
Safety relevance of information may not always be easily determined and not all information
may be technically available for prioritization.
Examples:
Good: Information concerning manoeuvring around a complex intersection is given priority
over an incoming telephone call.
Bad: A high-priority message concerning ice at the current location is prevented from
immediate delivery because the information screen is in the process of displaying a message
concerning distant traffic congestion.
Applicability:
EN 20 EN

The principle applies to systems that provide dynamic information (i.e. information that
changes as a result of conditions immediately surrounding the vehicle or traffic conditions
more generally).
Verification/Applicable methods:
Verification by inspection whether priority of information is taken into account.
Result = Yes/No.
References:
• ISO/TS16951 (2004): Road Vehicles - Ergonomic aspects of transport information and
control systems - Procedure for determining priority of on-board messages presented to
drivers.
4.3.3.5. Information presentation principle V
System generated sounds, with sound levels that can not be controlled by the driver, should
not mask audible warnings from within the vehicle or the outside.
Explanation:
Auditory information at a sound level which is too high may affect driving or road safety by
masking significant and important warning sounds concerning road and vehicle safety. In
addition, improperly designed sounds might result in driver distraction and annoyance.
Therefore, auditory information needs to be designed such that it does not mask warning
sounds from the interior or exterior to the driver. Any system, including audio systems, should
bear in mind the effect the system could have on the driver before being introduced.
This can be achieved in a number of ways including:
• The sounds produced by the system are not at such a level that warning sounds are likely to
be masked;
• The duration of the sounds is sufficiently short that warnings are not missed;
• Intermittent sounds are such that the interval between them is long enough for warnings to
be received by the driver.
Examples:
Good: Auditory signals from the system are set at a level that is below the sound level of
warnings from within and outside the vehicle.
Bad: An incoming telephone call is at a very high sound level liable to mask warnings, and
out of the driver’s control.
Applicability:
The principle applies to all audible sounds from information- and communication systems
with sound levels that can not be controlled by the driver, either from in-vehicle systems,
EN 21 EN

after-market or nomadic devices, or as a result of information received through
communication with the outside world.
Verification/Applicable methods:
Verification by inspection whether warnings are still clearly perceptible while the system
produces uncontrollable sound levels.
Result = Yes/No.
References:
• ISO 15006 (2004) - Road Vehicles - Traffic Information and Control Systems (TICS) -
Auditory Presentation of Information.
4.3.4. Interface with displays and controls
4.3.4.1. Interaction with displays and controls principle I
The driver should always be able to keep at least one hand on the steering wheel while
interacting with the system.
Explanation:
This principle is concerned with interfaces which require the driver to provide manual control
inputs (e.g. using buttons or knobs).
There are driving situations which require the driver to have precise control of the vehicle’s
steering and this can be achieved most effectively with both hands on the steering wheel. For
other driving situations, one hand on the steering wheel is acceptable as long as the other hand
is immediately available for steering if circumstances demand it. That leads to the
consideration that handheld devices are not recommended for use whilst driving.
To be in accord with this Principle, the system should be designed such that only one hand is
needed away from the steering wheel to interact with the system leaving one hand remaining
on the steering wheel. In addition, if one hand must be removed from the steering wheel to
undertake the interface, the other hand should not simultaneously be needed for interface (e.g.
for operating fingertip controls).
Examples:
Good: A control device that is securely mounted in a conveniently positioned holder and can
be used one-handed without removal from the holder.
Bad: An unfixed control device that the driver needs to hold in his hand while interacting.
Applicability:
All information and communications systems.
Verification/Applicable methods:
Verification by inspection whether the driver can operate the system with only one hand.
EN 22 EN

Result = Yes/No.
References:
No additional references.
4.3.4.2. Interaction with displays and controls principle II
The system should not require long and uninterruptible sequences of manual-visual
interfaces. If the sequence is short, it may be uninterruptible.
Explanation:
The principle allows for uninterruptible sequences of interfaces as long as they are short
whereas long sequence of interfaces should be interruptible by the driver. This means that the
system should not delete any driver input during interruption unless the sequence of interfaces
is short or a sufficiently large time-out period has passed.
If a driver is aware that a sequence of interfaces is “interruptible”, there will be a greater
tendency to attend to developing traffic situations in the knowledge that the system interface
can be completed when the traffic situation has been attended to.
On the other hand an interface may be uninterruptible if it is short in order to avoid an
additional input for returning the system’s state to normal. A well established example is a
two- or three-step interface for changing the sound settings of a conventional radio.
Examples:
Good: A sequence of interfaces for looking up traffic information can be interrupted without
the system changing its state.
Only a few of the “short-sequence-interfaces”, 3 button presses or less, have a 10-secondtime-out
period.
Bad: Key presses when entering a telephone number must not be more than 5 seconds apart or
all previously entered numbers are cancelled.
Applicability:
The principle applies to systems with manual-visual sequences of interfaces, i.e. the function
requires more than one input (by inspection). It does not apply to speech-based systems.
Verification/Applicable methods:
1. Analyse whether the sequence of interfaces can be considered as short taking into
account the following dimensions of an interface:
• the number of individual control inputs (e.g. less than 4-5 button presses);
• the complexity of the interface (e.g. less than 2 menu changes);
• the time to make the control inputs;
EN 23 EN

• the visual intensity of the interface.
2. Inspection whether system state changes when interrupting those sequences of interfaces
identified to be long by step 1.
Result: Yes / No.
References:
• Visual intensity of interface: see ISO FDIS 16673 on occlusion.
4.3.4.3. Interaction with displays and controls principle III
The driver should be able to resume an interrupted sequence of interfaces with the system at
the point of interruption or at another logical point.
Explanation:
If partly entered data disappears when an input sequence is interrupted, the driver may be
incited to achieve the full sequence even if the driving situation requires full attention.
The principle requires that the driver is given the possibility of continuing an interrupted
sequence of interfaces (with no need to restart it) either from the point of interruption, or from
another previously completed step.
When the driver resumes the sequence, it may happen that some events have made the point
of interruption no longer relevant. In such cases, the logical point provided by the system will
simplify the task and lessen the workload.
Examples:
Good: The driver can interrupt entering a phone number, look for several seconds at the road
scene and then complete the partly entered number.
Bad: When the driver is reading a list of traffic messages and interrupts viewing half way
through the list, the system cancels the list after a short time-out period. Consequently the
driver needs to “call” the list again in order to resume reading.
Applicability:
All information and communication systems with sequences of interfaces.
Verification/Applicable methods:
Inspection whether the system state changes after interrupting a sequence of interfaces.
Result = Yes/No.
If no, check/assess that the resuming point is logical. Verification of this requires assessment
and judgement
References:
EN 24 EN

No additional references.
4.3.4.4. Interaction with displays and controls principle IV
The driver should be able to control the pace of interface with the system. In particular the
system should not require the driver to make time-critical responses when providing inputs to
the system.
Explanation:
Interface with the system refers here to making input by a control action, or by voice, into the
system, either at the driver’s initiative or as a response to displayed information initiated by
the system itself. The provision of an appropriate response usually requires the driver to
perceive and process information before deciding on the correct action. This pre-supposes that
the situation develops such that the driver has sufficient time and mental resources available.
As systems are not actually available which can predict the level of driver workload in a
continuous and reliable manner, for the sake of safety and convenience it should be for the
driver alone to decide when he/she is ready to respond to the system.
Time critical responses are responses which must be made by the driver within a short
imposed time window. The driver is able to control the pace if he/she always remains in
command of the time before which an input must be provided and the time for which the
output is displayed.
Exceptions:
If the information displayed is directly related to the immediate driving situation (e.g. the
precise speed of the vehicle, the distance to the next turn - which determines the time for
which a displayed route direction is valid, etc.);
If the system provides assistance to help the driver to escape from hazards or avoid mistakes
and requires the driver to react within a specific time;
The second click on an input device, which requires a double click, as a specific signal is
acceptable;
Inputs provided by the same control giving different results depending on the duration of the
control activation (e.g. a button kept pressed for several seconds for radio station storage) are
not within the scope of this principle.
Examples:
Good: The driver can choose to listen to incoming touristic messages when the situation
permits and messages are not automatically presented to the driver when they arrive.
Bad: Confirmation or rejection of a re-routing proposal of a navigation system due to traffic
problems is available only for a few seconds before re-routing automatically starts.
Applicability:
Systems which provide information not directly related to the immediate driving situation.
(Compare exceptions under explanation)
EN 25 EN

Verification/Applicable methods:
Inspection, whether the driver can interact with the system at his own pace, i.e. can he decide
when to provide an input and how long information is displayed?
Result = Yes/No
References:
No additional references.
4.3.4.5. Interaction with displays and controls principle V
System controls should be designed such that they can be operated without adverse impact on
the primary driving controls.
Explanation:
This principle addresses the relationship between the primary driving controls and the system
controls in order to avoid an unintended interference of operation. This means that the
location, kinematics, control forces and control travel of a system control should be designed
such that its operation does neither hinder an intended nor facilitate an unintended primary
control input.
Examples:
Good: The most frequently used controls of the system are located within fingertip reach from
the steering wheel rim.
Bad: A rotary control with concentric axis on the steering wheel, which requires a momentum
for operation that may also induce a change in steering angle.
Applicability:
All systems intended to be used while driving, especially nomadic devices and aftermarket
systems.
Verification/Applicable methods:
Verification by inspection whether system operation interferes with operation of primary
driving controls resulting in an unintended effect on vehicle motion.
Result = Yes/No.
References:
ISO 4040 (2001) Road vehicles – Location of hand controls, indicators and tell-tales.
4.3.4.6. Interaction with displays and controls principle VI
The driver should have control of the loudness of auditory information where there is
likelihood of distraction.
EN 26 EN

Explanation:
To have control of auditory information means that the driver can adjust the volume and mute
the sound to a virtually unperceivable level.
Distraction is the capture of significant driver attention by stimulations which can arise from
non driving-relevant information, or from driving-relevant information presented in such a
way that the stimulation attracts more driver attention than needed. This undesirable capture
of driver attention may be caused by the frequency of the stimulus, its duration, its intensity
and, more generally, by its irrelevance to the driving task and may subsequently cause
irritation.
Since some important information may have to be conveyed to the driver while the sound is
off or while the sound level has been turned down to an inaudible level, the system may
provide non-auditory information on the system’s state.
Examples:
Good: The driver may control the “incoming phone call” acoustic signal and select a mode
where only a visual signal is displayed.
Bad: An obsolete traffic message is repeated many times and cannot be switched off.
Applicability:
All systems which provide non-safety relevant auditory information. Systems providing
warnings related to the driving task are excluded.
Verification/Applicable methods:
Inspection whether the system's auditory output can be switched off and on, or whether its
loudness can be adjusted by the driver down to a virtually muted level.
Result = Yes/No.
References:
ISO 15006 (2004): Road vehicles - Ergonomic aspects of transport information and control
systems – Specifications and compliance procedures for in-vehicle auditory presentation.
4.3.4.7. Interaction with displays and controls principle VII
The system's response (e.g. feedback, confirmation) following driver input should be timely
and clearly perceptible.
Explanation:
The system's response applies at two levels:
• The control activation feedback level, e.g. button displacement, auditory beep;
• The dialogue level, which is the system’s response to the driver’s input, e.g. recommended
route.
EN 27 EN

The system’s response is timely if it is perceived as quite instantaneous. For control activation
feedback timing should be from the moment at which the system recognises each driver input.
For the dialogue level response (which may be either the requested information, or an
indication that processing is underway) the timing should be from the end of the driver’s
input.
When the system needs significant processing time, some signal should be displayed to
inform the driver that the system has recognised the input and is preparing the requested
response.
The systems response is clearly perceptible if it is obvious for the driver that a change has
occurred in the system and that this change is the consequence of the input.
A system which reacts as expected by the driver contributes to the reliability of the driversystem
interface. Any delayed, ambiguous or uncertain system response may be
misinterpreted, may be taken as an error by the system or by the driver, and may lead to the
driver making a second input.
Uncertainty about whether input has been completed also reduces driver attention to the road
scene.
Examples:
Good: A message “BUSY” is displayed immediately following a driver request to change the
area shown on a map.
Bad: The last RDS message displayed on driver request differs only from the previous one by
one item: the number of km. This item is not enhanced, which creates doubt about whether
the input has been acknowledged by the system or not.
Applicability:
All information and communication systems with manual input.
Systems controlled by voice are not currently considered as within the scope of this principle
because the nature and structure of speech is such that mid-sentence pauses can be significant.
There is insufficient experience to properly define "timely" for voice controlled systems at
this time.
Verification/Applicable methods:
Verification by measurement of system response time: The system should respond quickly
upon a manual control input or display a “system busy” message.
Result = Yes/No.
References:
No additional references.
EN 28 EN

4.3.4.8. Interface with displays and control principle VIII
Systems providing non-safety related dynamic visual information should be capable of being
switched into a mode where that information is not provided to the driver.
Explanation:
Dynamic visual information is visual information which changes as a result of system
initiation. Non-safety related information is information which is not relevant to the driver in
avoiding or reducing the risk of an immediate or imminent hazardous situation.
Examples of non-safety related information include navigation map, freight and fleet data,
banking services.
Since an unacceptable distraction from the driving task may be caused by a dynamic
presentation of non-safety related information the driver should be able to switch the
information off.
Examples:
Good: The driver can select from a menu whether non-safety related dynamic visual
information is displayed or not.
Bad: A navigation map, which is updated every second, cannot be switched off without losing
complete guidance support.
Applicability:
Information and Communication systems providing non-safety related dynamic visual
information.
Verification/Applicable methods:
Inspection whether the system can be switched into a mode where non-safety related dynamic
visual information is not provided to the driver.
Result = Yes/No.
References:
No additional references.
4.3.5. System behaviour principles
4.3.5.1. System behaviour principle I
While the vehicle is in motion, visual information not related to driving that is likely to
distract the driver significantly should be automatically disabled, or presented in such a way
that the driver cannot see it.
Explanation:
EN 29 EN

This principle emphasises the importance of the visual modality for safe driving and seeks to
limit visual information from within the vehicle which can provide a distraction from the
primary driving task. Likelihood of significant distraction refers to modes of presentation
where the information has a dynamic and unpredictable component such that the entirety of
information presented cannot be obtained by the driver with a few brief glances (e.g. TV,
video and automatically scrolling images and text).
One example is automatically scrolling images and text that cover a variety of forms of
dynamic presentation where the driver is not able to pace the presentation and where the
entire information is not available at any one time. Any other specific modes of presentation,
e.g. “Internet pages”, should be examined within the context of these examples. Scrolling lists
under the control of the driver, such as navigation system destinations, are not within the
scope of this principle as the driver can always interrupt and resume the interface.
Even after a vehicle ceases motion, it is recommended that a time delay of a few seconds be
included before one of the visual presentation modes covered by this principle is activated.
This deals, at least partially, with the situation of divided attention of the driver in “stop-andgo”
traffic conditions.
Examples:
Good: A TV picture which goes blank when the vehicle is in motion and does not re-appear
immediately when the vehicle stops.
Bad: A passenger entertainment system which can be seen by the driver while the vehicle is in
motion.
Applicability:
This principle refers to visual information only which is not related to driving. Therefore it
does not apply to non-visual information, like tonal or verbal information, or to visual
information related to driving.
Verification/Applicable methods:
Verification by inspection whether information which is not intended to be seen by the driver
while the vehicle is in motion is not shown or cannot be seen by the driver.
Result = Yes/No
References:
• ISO 15005 (2002) “Road vehicles - Ergonomic aspects of transport information and
control systems – Dialogue Management principles and compliance procedures” (2002);
• ISO 4513 (2003) Road Vehicle – Visibility, method for establishment of eyellipse for
driver’s eye location.
4.3.5.2. System behaviour principle II
The behaviour of the system should not adversely interfere with displays or controls required
for the primary driving task and for road safety.
EN 30 EN

Explanation:
This principle is intended to ensure that the driver’s ability to be in full control of the vehicle
is not affected (in a way which decreases safety) by the behaviour of the information and
communication system during normal operation or failure. This means that the system should
not override information or controls relevant for the safe operation of the vehicle. In this
context, interference is any influence or interface which modifies the performance,
characteristics or behaviour, of existing displays or controls.
Adverse interference with displays or controls results in an overall impairment of
performance (from that intended) of the display or control. Examples include changes to
mandatory displays or controls. In addition, the behaviour of a system should not obstruct or
render inoperative other systems which are specifically intended as safety systems.
Examples:
Good: On a multipurpose display, navigation directions are given in a way that the
speedometer always remains easily readable.
Bad: On a multipurpose display, mandatory information is overlaid by radio station
identification information.
Applicability:
Refers to systems which can be reasonably foreseen to induce display and control
interference.
Verification/Applicable methods:
Verification by inspection whether the system’s behaviour does not interfere with the use of
displays and controls required for the primary task of driving.
Result = Yes/No.
References:
• ISO 4040 (2001): “Road vehicles – passenger cars – location of hand controls, indicators
and tell-tales”.
4.3.5.3. System behaviour principle III
System functions not intended to be used by the driver while driving should be made
impossible to interact with while the vehicle is in motion, or, as a less preferred option, clear
warnings should be provided against the unintended use.
Explanation:
This principle seeks to ensure clarity, particularly for the driver, in terms of the
manufacturer’s intention for use of the system. If this principle is complied with, subsequent
use of the system not within the envelope of intended use can be considered as misuse.
"Impossible" in this context means that the designated system function is not operable by the
driver during normal use or during reasonably foreseeable misuse. In this context, it would
EN 31 EN

not be reasonable for a manufacturer to anticipate that a driver would undertake sophisticated
technical measures to defeat the manufacturer’s intentions. The manufacturer’s rationale may
be based on regulation or their own judgement.
A clear warning gives information or advice about the negative consequences of a situation or
action in sufficient detail. The warning is available in such a way or form that the driver can
readily perceive it. It can be written information or an automatic display by the system.
Reasonable drivers should be in no doubt concerning the use of the system intended by the
manufacturer after taking account of the clear warning.
There are a number of ways of conveying warnings. A continuously displayed warning is one
option. If the warning is not continuously displayed, then it should remain available for a
sufficient duration to ensure that the driver has the opportunity to become aware of it. One
suitable solution is for the driver to acknowledge the warning by pressing a button.
Examples:
Good: When the vehicle starts to move, the driver’s interface with an internet website is
cancelled and a message “not available while driving” is displayed. When the vehicle comes
to a full stop, the driver can resume the interface.
Bad: A television facility is designated as an unavailable function while the vehicle is in
motion as detected by a hand-brake position sensor. The sensor on the hand brake can be
deactivated by a partially engaged hand brake. (This is an example of misuse which is
reasonably foreseeable and should, therefore, have been designed out, or clear warnings
provided.)
Applicability:
This principle applies only to system functions intended by the manufacturer not to be used by
the driver while driving.
Verification/Applicable methods:
Verification by inspection whether system functionality not intended to be used while driving
is inaccessible by the driver while the vehicle is in motion (this is the preferred option) or a
clear warning is provided to the driver.
Result = Yes/No.
References:
• ISO 15005 (2002): “Road vehicles — Ergonomic aspects of transport information and
control systems – Dialogue Management principles and compliance procedures”;
• ISO 17287 (2003): “Road vehicles — Ergonomic aspects of transport information and
control systems – Procedure for assessing suitability for use while driving”.
4.3.5.4. System behaviour principle IV
Information should be presented to the driver about current status, and any malfunction
within the system that is likely to have an impact on safety.
EN 32 EN

Explanation:
There can be safety implications when there is a divergence between the actual function of a
system and the driver’s reasonable expectations based on previous information and/or
experience. Therefore a change in status or a malfunction which modifies system performance
needs to be made apparent to the driver.
The information to be presented should be designed to be readily perceived by the driver (i.e.
easily understood and meaningful) in terms of the consequences of the current status or
system malfunction, particularly on vehicle control and manoeuvring with respect to other
traffic and the road infrastructure.
Examples:
Good: An in-vehicle speed advice system informs the driver that the system is unable to
provide dynamic information rather than continuing to show the prevailing inter-urban speed
even on entry to an urban area.
Bad: A route guidance system displays the information “Illegal Entry Mode 31” before each
turn instruction. The implications of this message are not readily perceived by the driver.
Applicability:
This principle applies only to information about status and malfunctions of information and
communication systems which are likely to have an impact on safety.
Verification/Applicable methods:
Verification by inspection whether information is presented to the driver in an appropriate
way about status and malfunction of the system which is likely to have an impact on safety.
Result = Yes/No.
References:
• ISO 15008 (2003): “Road vehicles – Ergonomic aspects of transport information and
control systems – Specifications and compliance procedures for in-vehicle visual
presentation”.
• ISO 15005 (2002): “Road vehicles — Ergonomic aspects of transport information and
control systems – Dialogue Management principles and compliance procedures”.
4.3.6. Information about the system
4.3.6.1. Information about the system principle I
The system should have adequate instructions for the driver covering use and relevant aspects
of installation and maintenance.
Explanation:
This principle aims to ensure that instructions are available to as many drivers as possible so
that they can easily become aware of the capabilities and limitations of the system, its context
EN 33 EN

of use, proper installation and maintenance. Drivers should rarely need to seek information
beyond that provided in the instructions.
Adequate instructions are sufficient for the purpose of the driver that is reasonable for the
manufacturer to anticipate. This will depend on the intended use of the system (functionality,
context etc.). One indication of adequacy is the size and quality of any text or diagrams. For
example, print is not expected to be smudged or in a font style which is too small or difficult
to read. For written instructions “adequate” relates to the physical media of presentation. For
example, printed material should be on paper (or other material) providing a reasonable
durability and the printing should be permanent on that material. Instructions which are only
on packaging material are not considered adequate as packaging is likely to be discarded
rather than being passed to subsequent owners. In the case that instructions are only available
in form of “help functions” these should be designed in a way that allows their operation
without prior reading of written material.
Examples:
Good: Good quality printed colour manual on A5 pages with text and illustrations which fits
within the glove box.
Bad: No instructions; sketchy instructions just on the packaging material; instructions on poor
quality paper; instructions that are so small that they can be easily mislaid.
Applicability:
This principle applies to system instructions in all forms.
This principle refers to system instructions intended for the driver, not a full workshop manual
as might be required by garage or maintenance institutions.
The principle applies to all aspects of systems which it is reasonable for the manufacturer to
anticipate that drivers will require at some time within the expected life of the system. The
principle excludes aspects of systems specifically designated by the manufacturer as not
intended for use while driving.
Verification/Applicable methods:
Verification requires assessment and judgement specifically taking into account the system’s
functionality and the intended user groups.
4.3.6.2. Information about the system principle II
System instructions should be correct and simple.
Explanation:
Design of user instructions is an HMI issue in itself. Instructions are typically ignored by
drivers and this is exacerbated by poor design of the instructions. This principle is intended to
promote high acceptance of instructions by drivers.
EN 34 EN

Instructions should be factually accurate in all important aspects. Each element of the
instructions (group of words, diagram, function-described etc.) should be correct for the actual
system to which it relates.
Simple has to be interpreted in the context of the system being described and will vary with
the complexity and functionality of the system. The instructions should be unambiguous and
easy to understand, if possible by all members of the intended user population (e.g. documents
in “Plain Language”). Instructions should not be overly technical and should use user-oriented
language. It is important that the instructions are simple even if the system is complex.
Examples:
Good: Good examples might be expected to have some of the following features: well
presented manual with factually accurate text and diagrams, contents page, page numbers,
good use of colour, written in a plain language style using common words. Good Index. Use
of different fonts, italics, bold, underlines etc. to distinguish portions of the text.
Bad: Instructions which refer to a previous model with different functions and controls.
Applicability:
This principle applies to system instructions in all forms.
Verification/Applicable methods:
Assessment of correctness is a matter of comparison between the actual system and the
system instructions. Assessment of simplicity is a matter of judgement taking driver
knowledge and expectations into account.
A system instruction can conform with this principle even if small errors are present as long
as these can be shown to be unimportant and are not too numerous.
Verification requires assessment and judgement.
4.3.6.3. Information about the system principle III
System instructions should be in languages or forms designed to be understood by the
intended group of drivers.
Explanation:
The aim of this principle is to ensure that instructions are of use to as many drivers as possible
and that drivers are aware of the capabilities and limitations of the system, its context of use
etc.
Different forms of instructions may exist which could be presented in different modalities:
Auditory instructions may be spoken or presented by noises or earcons. Visually presented
information includes diagrams, photographs, highlighting of the next element, programmed
tutorials etc.
Spoken instructions and written instructions (either printed or within a system) will be in one
or a number of languages (e.g. English, Finnish etc.)
EN 35 EN

This principle requires that when instructions are being devised, consideration is given to the
intended and most likely driver population and that instructions are designed which can
reasonably be expected to be understood and used by as many drivers as possible.
Manufacturers should consider the driver population and the likely and intended use of the
system as well as the native languages and other languages spoken and read. Published
statistics on language proficiency by country could be used as reference. At minimum, the
majority language of the country in which the system is sold should be considered. Diagrams
often provide additional clarity. Where used these should follow accepted stereotypes and
conventions for the intended population.
Examples:
Good: For a system sold in Sweden, instructions are formulated in easily understandable
Swedish and incorporate pictorial help at relevant passages.
Bad: Written instructions (without diagrams or photographs) automatically translated from
Japanese (unedited) for a system presented for sale in the European market.
Applicability:
This principle applies to instructions in all forms.
Verification/Applicable methods:
Verification requires assessment and judgement taking into account the system’s functionality
and the intended user groups.
4.3.6.4. Information about the system principle IV
The instructions should clearly state which functions of the system are intended to be used by
the driver while driving and those which are not.
Explanation:
Instructions that are in accord with this principle allow the driver the opportunity to be fully
aware of the use of the system intended by the manufacturer and to make clear the
responsibilities in the case where the driver uses the system beyond the manufacturer’s
intentions. Functions which are specifically not intended by the manufacturer to be used by
the driver while driving should be explicitly designated as such whether disabled while the
vehicle is in motion or not.
After becoming aware of the instructions, reasonable drivers should be in no doubt about
which functions of the system have been designed to be used by the driver while driving (i.e.
the intended use of the system). They should also be in no doubt about those functions which
have not been designed for use while driving.
A specific recommendation is that if drivers need to equip themselves before using a handsfree
communication system, they should be instructed to do so while the vehicle is not in
motion.
Examples:
EN 36 EN

Good: Instructions for a mobile phone which states that the hand-set is not intended for use in
a moving vehicle (and the hand-set is disabled and switches to hands free microphone/speaker
when the vehicle is in motion).
Bad: A feature-rich driver information and communications system which has additional
functionality for use by a passenger, or driver while stationary, but whose instructions make
no clear distinction concerning the features intended for use by the driver while driving.
Applicability:
This principle applies to instructions in all forms.
Verification/Applicable methods:
Verification is by inspection.
Result = Yes/No.
4.3.6.5. Information about the system principle V
Product information should be designed to accurately convey the system functionality.
Explanation:
The aim of this principle is to encourage good design of all product information and to assist
potential or current user of the system in appreciating the benefits and limitations of the
system.
All product information should be factually correct and presented transparently and without
ambiguity. Information does not have to be comprehensive to be accurate.
Functionality is concerned with what the system does and, by implication, the benefits that the
functionality provides to the driver. Functionality should distinguish between that which is
designed to be used by the driver while driving and that which is not; i.e. the information
should not claim or imply that a function which has not been designed to be used while
driving can be so used. The product information should make it clear if additional software of
hardware is required (other than that with the base model) for specific functionality.
This principle is also in line with consumer protection requirements, EC Regulations and
existing codes concerning advertising and all product information should conform to the
report on advertising.
Examples:
Good: A communications system which is not designed to store telephone numbers while
driving provides the information that “pre-stored numbers can be selected using a single
button”.
Bad: The same communications system provides the information “Telephone numbers can be
stored for later use” adjacent to a picture of a driver and vehicle in motion. This association
implies that number storage is designed for use while driving.
Applicability:
EN 37 EN

This principle refers to product information intended for the driver, not a full workshop
manual as might be required by garage or maintenance institutions.
Verification/Applicable methods:
Verification requires assessment and judgement taking into account the system’s functionality
and the intended user groups.
References:
• Advertising in the context of road safety. Final Report VII/671/1995, High Level Working
Party of Representatives of the Government of the Member States.
4.3.6.6. Information about the system principle VI
Product information should make it clear if special skills are required to use the system as
intended by the manufacturer or if the product is unsuitable for particular users.
Explanation:
This principle is intended to ensure that the design population intended by the manufacturer is
made clear to potential and actual users of the system. The normal presumption is that a
system can be used by all drivers. However, initial training may be required; for example, for
systems designed for specialist professional use. Although all drivers are required to have a
minimum level of (far) vision, other capabilities may vary considerably and this includes the
capabilities of drivers with special needs.
This principle is also designed to encourage compliance with consumer protection
requirements, EC Regulations and existing codes concerning advertising.
Product information refers to any information that the driver has access to concerning the
system. It includes system instructions, technical specifications, promotional materials,
packaging etc. However, full workshop and technical manuals are excluded from the scope of
this principle.
The need for special skills and the unsuitability for particular user groups are matters for
definition by the manufacturers. If any special skill requirement or initial training is envisaged by
the manufacturer, then all product information should make this clear. Similarly, any restriction
on use intended by the manufacturer should be described in the product information.
Examples:
Good: The product information makes it clear that routing instructions are provided
exclusively using the auditory modality and the system is therefore unsuitable for drivers with
a hearing impairment.
Bad: A voice input system only works reliably with deep male voices, but this limitation is
not made clear in the product information.
Applicability:
This principle refers to product information intended for the driver, not a full workshop
manual as might be required by garage or maintenance institutions.
EN 38 EN

Verification/Applicable methods:
Verification is by inspection.
Result = Yes/No.
4.3.6.7. Information about the system principle VII
Representations of system use (e.g. descriptions, photographs and sketches) should neither
create unrealistic expectations on the part of potential users nor encourage unsafe use
Explanation:
The aim of this principle is to assist the driver in appreciating the functionality, benefits and
limitations of the system before (and during) use. It is also intended to promote road safety
and compliance with existing traffic regulations and codes of road and vehicle use as well as
consumer protection requirements, EC Regulations and existing codes concerning advertising.
Unrealistic expectations are expectations held by reasonable potential users (based on their own
knowledge and experience and any product information available) which are false, partial, too
high, or overly general.
Unsafe use covers a range of behaviours but includes any behaviour which is in conflict with the
road code of the EC Member States where the system is used.
Examples:
Good: Photographs of the system being used as intended by the manufacturer and following
all relevant codes and Regulations.
Bad: A photograph showing a hand-held telephone being used while driving.
Applicability:
This applies to all representations of system use included those provided by the manufacturer in
instruction manuals (diagrams etc.), photographs, films, computer animations, sound clips and
any form of product information or advertising that users or potential users of the system may be
exposed to.
Verification/Applicable methods:
Verification requires assessment and judgement taking into account the system’s functionality
and the intended user groups.
5. RECOMMENDATIONS ON SAFE USE (RSU)
5.1. Stakeholders involved in system use
The driver can be supported in the safe operation of in-vehicle systems while driving by:
Making individual system design as good as possible (installation, information presentation,
interface, system behaviour, user documentation);
EN 39 EN

Making other aspects of the context of use as benign as possible. These non-system design
aspects of the context of use can be called the “Human Machine Environment”.
In the same way that the principles in the ESoP 2006 have been formulated to inform and
influence those organisations responsible for (or contributing to) system design and
construction, the use recommendations here in the RSU have been formulated to inform and
influence those organisations that are responsible for (or contribute to) the human-machine
environment of system use. This environment includes:
• The combined use of systems to complete a task;
• The knowledge and skill of the driver (in terms of the systems and tasks);
• The driving task/situation;
• The social environment (including time pressure).
For a professional driver, this environment also includes:
• Tasks that are required as part of the job (in addition to the driving task);
• Company instructions and practices;
• Principles are presented relevant for Employers, Point-of-sale, Vehicle Hire Companies
and drivers themselves.
5.2. Recommendations
5.2.1. Recommendations on influencing use
5.2.1.1. Recommendation on influencing use I
Employers should ensure that all in-vehicle information systems are maintained in
accordance with the manufacturer’s instructions.
Explanation:
It is expected that the product-responsible organisation will, according to ESoP principle
4.3.6.1, produce instructions concerning how the information systems should be maintained
(physical issues, hardware, replaceable parts, software and software updates etc.)
The employer should ensure (by direct action, contract or instruction) that all recommended
maintenance actions are carried out. This is to help ensure that the product supports the driver
as much as possible.
Examples:
Good: The route guidance system’s map CD is updated regularly (e.g. annually) as
recommended by the manufacturer.
Bad: The employer has no records of their vehicles’ information systems and undertakes no
maintenance. As a result digital maps become progressively out-dated.
EN 40 EN

Applicability:
The recommendation applies to in-vehicle information and communication systems that,
based on the product responsible organisation’s recommendations, require maintenance.
Verification/Applicable methods:
The employer should maintain a permanent record of maintenance actions. These records
should be in accordance with the manufacturer’s instructions.
5.2.1.2. Recommendation on influencing use II
Employer’s procedures and incentive schemes should not cause or encourage system misuse.
There should be a clear distinction between systems or functions that are intended (by the
employer) to be used while driving and those that are not.
Explanation:
Employers are expected to have procedures concerning the conduct of their employees. Those
related to use of in-vehicle information and communication systems should support safe
driving practice. Therefore, the procedures should discourage listening to, or reading,
complex information while driving. They should not put the employee in a position where
they are required to make difficult business decisions ‘live’ on the phone.
Similarly, company reward (incentive) or punishment schemes should not encourage system
misuse by implicitly encouraging time saving by inappropriate use of systems while driving.
For each system, the employer should make it clear, by specific written instructions and
procedures, whether a system (or functions of a system) may be used while driving or whether
it is not permitted. This removes the situation where individual drivers make personal (and
often not well-founded) decisions concerning system use.
Where multiple (non-integrated) systems are available to drivers, restrictions for use of
multiple systems should be documented (e.g. do not use system A simultaneously with system
B while driving).
Examples:
Good: Company policy forbids all mobile phone use while driving
Bad: The company reward scheme is related to the number of deliveries completed in a fixed
time period and this encourages use of a system not designed for use while driving to be so
used.
Applicability:
The recommendation applies where there is an employer-employee relationship, where
driving is part of the task, and where the information systems are supplied by the employer.
Verification/Applicable methods:
Clear permanent instructions are provided to the drivers that list any systems or functions of a
system that should not be used simultaneously with driving;
EN 41 EN

The employer periodically checks the employee’s knowledge and understanding of company
procedures and which functions or systems should not be used while driving.
5.2.1.3. Recommendation on influencing use III
Adequate training should be given on all in-vehicle systems that drivers are required to use by
employers while driving. Employers should ensure that employees can use the systems without
endangering themselves or other road users.
Explanation:
The recommendation requires employers to identify which information systems their drivers
need to use and to provide training such that recommendations for safe use are fully explained
to them. It also requires some assessment of whether, in practice, each employee can
undertake the dual task of system use and safe driving at the same time.
The need for this recommendation arises from the different physical and cognitive abilities of
drivers and the need to assess, on an individual basis, that they are capable of undertaking the
required job. The job in this case involves driving and simultaneous use of an information or
communication system. The rationale is that training improves performance and safety.
Where multiple (non-integrated) systems are involved, training and documentation should
describe how tasks can be achieved using multiple systems; training on individual systems is
not a complete solution.
Note that the driver will always be expected to attend to safe driving as the primary task (as
required by the 1968 Vienna Convention) and may, therefore, abandon or suspend use of an
in-vehicle information or communications system as external circumstances require.
A relevant EC directive exists:
Council regulation 3820/85/EEC (harmonization of certain social legislation relating to road
transport) – last amended on 15 July 2003 by the European Parliament (2003/59/EC) – on the
initial qualification and periodic training of drivers of certain road vehicles for the carriage of
goods or passengers.
Examples:
Good: The Employer has an ongoing monitoring and assessment programme that includes
expert assessor observation of driving performance whilst simultaneously using the
information system. It also solicits feedback from drivers.
Bad: The employer states that a system may (or should) be used while driving, but does not
monitor in any way the impact that this has on driving performance and safety.
Applicability:
The recommendation applies where there is an employer-employee relationship and where
driving is part of the task and where the information systems supplied by the employer need
to be used while driving, or may be used while driving according to the employers
procedures.
EN 42 EN

Verification/Applicable methods:
Employer identifies systems that their drivers are required to use as part of their job;
Drivers are trained on system use;
Employer periodically checks the employee’s knowledge and understanding of the system’s
operation and functionality;
Employer periodically checks that the employee can use the system safely while driving.
5.2.1.4. Recommendation on influencing use IV
Employers should ensure that a copy of the manufacturer’s instructions for use is available in
every equipped vehicle.
Explanation:
Since some information and communication systems are rich in features and some of the
functions are used rarely, there are often situations when a driver needs to refer to some
instructions in order to undertake a task. Without instructions, the driver may be more
frustrated or distracted by the system or may be unable to complete their task.
The recommendation requires the employer to ensure that there are user instructions available
and that a copy is provided in each vehicle used by their employees.
Where multiple (non-integrated) systems are involved, training and documentation should
describe how tasks can be achieved using multiple systems; one instruction manual per
system is not a complete solution.
Examples:
Good: The telephone manufacturer provides user instructions and the employer places a copy
in each vehicle and periodically checks that it is present.
Bad: No user manual is provided or no system is in place to ensure that a copy remains in
each equipped vehicle.
Applicability:
The recommendation applies where there is an employer-employee relationship and where
driving is part of the task and where the information systems are supplied by the employer.
Verification/Applicable methods:
The test is presence within each relevant vehicle of the correct user instructions.
Verification by inspection.
Result = Yes/No.
EN 43 EN

5.2.1.5. Recommendation on influencing use V
Point of sale promotion (e.g. advertising) should not encourage unsafe use.
Explanation:
This recommendation is intended to assist the driver in appreciating the functionality, benefits
and limitations of the system before (and during) use and to promote road safety. It is also
designed to encourage compliance with consumer protection requirements, EC Regulations
and existing codes concerning advertising.
Promotional materials include those provided by the point-of-sale in instructions (diagrams etc.),
photographs, films computer animations, sound clips and any form of product information or
advertising that users or potential users of the system may be exposed to.
Unsafe use means anything which is in conflict with these recommendations or with safe driving
codes.
Examples:
Good: Photographs of the system being used as intended by the manufacturer and following
all relevant codes and Regulations.
Bad: A photograph showing a hand-held telephone being used while driving.
Applicability:
The recommendation applies to any product related information provided by the point-of-sale
for all in-vehicle information and communication systems.
Verification/Applicable methods:
The test is in accordance with the advertising code of practice.
Verification by inspection.
Result = Yes/No.
5.2.1.6. Recommendation on influencing use VI
Point of sale information should inform vehicle purchasers of the safety issues associated with
in-vehicle information systems.
Explanation:
Drivers are influenced in their use of in-vehicle information and communication systems
according to their knowledge about the system and their appreciation of the risks of use. In
order to promote risk-aware driving, and hence contribute to safety, drivers need to be well
informed concerning the systems that they use.
In addition to user experience and the manufacturer’s user instructions, drivers should be able
to obtain information from the point-of-sale.
EN 44 EN

Therefore, this recommendation requires that suitable information exists and/or that point-ofsale
personnel have adequate knowledge in order to inform purchasers of the safety issues.
Examples:
Good: At the point-of-sale all personnel involved with customers have basic knowledge
concerning safe use of information and communication systems. In addition, certain personnel
have more in-depth knowledge and can advise drivers concerning safe practice.
Bad: No-one at the point-of-sale is aware of the information systems, how they function and
the safety issues associated with their use. There is also no information available to potential
purchasers.
Applicability:
The recommendation applies to first sale of all in-vehicle information and communication
systems.
Verification/Applicable methods:
Undertake a risk assessment concerning use of the system;
For major risks, develop suitable material for the purchasers;
Verification of the adequacy of the procedures requires judgement. Adequacy can also be
assessed from the point of view of the purchasers.
5.2.1.7. Recommendation on influencing use VII
Vehicle hire companies should ensure that all information and communication systems are
maintained in accordance with the manufacturer’s instructions.
Explanation:
It is expected that the product-responsible organisation will, according to principle 6.1,
produce instructions concerning how the information systems should be maintained (physical
issues, hardware, replaceable parts, software and software updates etc.)
The vehicle hire company should ensure (by direct action or contract) that all recommended
maintenance actions are carried out.
Examples:
Good: The route guidance system’s map CD is updated annually as recommended by the
manufacturer.
Bad: The hire company has no records of their vehicles’ information systems and undertakes
no maintenance. As a result digital maps become progressively out-dated.
Applicability:
The recommendation only applies to in-vehicle information and communication systems that,
based on the product responsible organisation’s recommendations, require maintenance.
EN 45 EN

Verification/Applicable methods:
The test is:
• The vehicle hire company should maintain a permanent record of maintenance actions.
• These should be in accordance with the manufacturer’s instructions.
Verification by inspection.
Result = Yes/No.
5.2.1.8. Recommendation on influencing use VIII
Vehicle hire companies should ensure that a copy of the manufacture’s instructions for use is
available in every equipped vehicle.
Explanation:
Since some information and communication systems are rich in features and some of the
functions are used rarely, there are often situation when the driver needs to refer to some
instructions in order to undertake a task. Without some instructions, the drivers may be more
frustrated or distracted by the system or may be unable to complete their task.
The recommendation requires the hire company to ensure that there are user instructions
available and that a copy is provided in each vehicle used by their customers.
Examples:
Good: The telephone manufacturer provides user instructions and the hire company places a
copy in each vehicle and periodically checks that it is present.
Bad: No user manual is provided or no system is in place to ensure that a copy remains in
each equipped vehicle.
Applicability:
The recommendation applies where there is a hire relationship and where the information
systems are supplied with the vehicle.
Verification/Applicable methods:
The test is presence or absence within each relevant vehicle of the correct user instructions.
Verification by inspection.
Result = Yes/No.
5.2.1.9. Recommendation on influencing use IX:
Vehicle hire personnel should have adequate knowledge concerning in-vehicle information
systems within the vehicles they make available and should offer instructions in their safe use.
EN 46 EN

Explanation:
Drivers are influenced in their use of in-vehicle information and communication systems
according to their knowledge about the system and their appreciation of the risks of use. In
order to promote risk-aware driving, and hence contribute to safety, drivers need to be well
informed concerning the systems that they use.
In addition to user experience and the manufacturer’s user instructions, drivers should be able
to obtain information from their point of rental of the vehicle.
Therefore, this recommendation requires vehicle hire personnel to have adequate knowledge
in order to inform purchasers of the safety issues.
Examples:
Good: At the rental outlet all personnel involved with customers have basic knowledge
concerning safe use of information and communication systems. In addition, certain personnel
have more in-depth knowledge and can advise drivers concerning safe practice.
Bad: No-one at the point of vehicle hand-over is aware of the information systems, how they
function and the safety issues associated with their use.
Applicability:
The recommendation applies where there is a hire relationship and the vehicle is equipped
with in-vehicle information and communication systems.
Verification/Applicable methods:
Undertake a risk assessment concerning use of the system;
For major risks, develop suitable material for the hirers.
Verification of the adequacy of the procedures requires judgement. Adequacy can also be
assessed from the point of view of the hirers.
5.2.2. Recommendations for drivers
According to the Vienna Convention (1968), the driver must always be in full control of the
vehicle and consequently has full responsibility for system use while driving. In addition, the
following recommendations can be expressed to promote the safe use of in-vehicle
information and communication systems:
• Drivers should ensure that nomadic systems and after-market systems are installed in
accordance with the manufacturer’s instructions;
• Drivers should ensure that all in-vehicle systems are maintained in accordance with the
manufacturer’s instructions;
• Drivers are responsible for modifications to any system. These need to be in accordance
with technical descriptions and should not contradict the information provided by the
manufacturer;
EN 47 EN

• Drivers should only use in-vehicle equipment as recommended by the manufacturer. This
may require a period of familiarisation or training;
• Drivers should only use information and communication systems while driving if it is safe
to do so;
• Nomadic systems should not be used hand-held or unsecured within the vehicle while
driving;
• All instructions associated with in-vehicle equipment should be retained with the vehicle
and passed to the next vehicle owner or user.
6. IMPLEMENTATION OF THE ESOP 2006 AND RSU
6.1. Stakeholders involved in the implementation of the EsOP 2006 and RSU
The following actions are relevant for industry with a special emphasis on nomadic devices,
for providers of transport and haulage services, for fleet owners and managers, for point of
sales promotion, for vehicle rental companies, and for the Member States.
6.2. Implementation actions
6.2.1. Implementation actions by industry
The primary need is for all sections of industry to be aware of the ESoP 2006 and RSU and to
include the principles within their considerations of design and use of in-vehicle systems.
For vehicle OEMs, a key organisation is ACEA, who self-committed to the principles within
the 1999 ESoP. ACEA is invited to similarly endorse the 2006 ESoP and ensure that it is
distributed and acknowledged within their industry, including their supply chains.
Additional industry stakeholders are involved with nomadic devices and the products and
services that they support. There is no single appropriate industry body, but many of the
issues specific to the design of nomadic devices and their use and integration within vehicles
can be discussed through the Nomadic Devices Forum. This deserves strong support across
industry.
An important objective for the Nomadic Devices Forum is achieving an agreement over
definitions and safety issues:
• Clarification of legal aspects (responsibility and liability) associated with nomadic devices
integration
• Agreement on an ESoP implementation plan for the entire industry, e.g. by selfcommitments,
MOUs, device certification
• Arrangements for provision of a fitting kit in accordance with the ESoP 2006
• Design of devices and functions intended for use while driving, in accordance with the
ESoP 2006
EN 48 EN

• Provision of clear safety instructions to drivers, in accordance with the ESoP 2006
• Co-operation between nomadic devices and vehicle manufacturers leading to smart
interfaces
Industry is encouraged to promote these principles at the international level (relevant groups
include among others: JAMA 7 , AAM 8 , IHRA-ITS 9 and UNECE 10 ) as well as at the
standardisation level.
6.2.2. Implementation actions by professional transport companies
The providers of transport and haulage services as well as fleet owners and managers are
invited to ensure that all in-vehicle information systems in their vehicles are maintained in
accordance with the manufacturers’ instructions. Their procedures and incentive schemes
should not cause or encourage system misuse. There should be a clear distinction between
systems or functions that are intended (by the employer) to be used while driving and those
that are not.
Furthermore, they should ensure that employees can use the systems without endangering
themselves or other road users. Adequate training should be given on all in-vehicle systems
that drivers are required to use by employers while driving. They should also ensure that a
copy of the manufacturer’s instructions for use is available in every equipped vehicle.
6.2.3. Implementation actions by point of sales promotion
Point of sale promotion (e.g. advertising) should not encourage unsafe use.
Point of sale information should include information to vehicle purchasers of the safety issues
associated with the in-vehicle information and communication systems and their use.
6.2.4. Implementation actions by vehicle rental companies
Vehicle rental companies should ensure that all the in-vehicle information and communication
systems in their vehicles are maintained in accordance with the manufacturers’ instructions.
They should ensure that a copy of the manufactures' instructions for use are available in every
equipped vehicle.
Vehicle rental personnel should have adequate knowledge concerning in-vehicle information
systems within the vehicles they make available and should offer instructions about their safe
use.
6.2.5. Implementation actions by Member States
Member States should promote these principles, encourage stakeholders to adhere to them by
written commitment if possible, and monitor the concrete adherence to these principles. They
should ensure that the ESoP is effectively disseminated, known and applied by designers,
7 Japan Automobile Manufacturers Association.
8 Alliance of Automobile Manufacturers
9 International Harmonized Research Activities – Intelligent Transport Systems
10 United Nation Economic Commission for Europe
EN 49 EN

installers, manufacturers, retailers, rental companies and fleet managers at national and local
levels.
They should provide general information to drivers on safe use of the in-vehicle information
and communication systems e.g. by means of safety campaigns.
They should promote self-commitment of ESoP compliance for after-market systems and
nomadic devices providers and support provision of consumer information concerning the
safety implication and usability of in-vehicle information and communication devices (e.g. via
consumer organisations, automobile clubs, driving schools, EURONCAP, etc)
They should ensure that regularly updated information is available on the definition and
dynamics of the market for after-market and nomadic devices to be informed about the
evolution of the market and of the techniques, and so that the Commission can be informed
about the evolution of the market.
They should ensure that their data collection is sufficiently detailed to enable further
evaluation and monitoring of the safety-impact of in-vehicle information and communication
systems especially of aftermarket systems and nomadic devices.
Furthermore, they should take appropriate measures (i.e. legislative, enforcement measures)
to ensure secure fixing of aftermarket systems and nomadic devices.
They should continue to actively enforce existing Health and Safety legislation concerning atwork
driving practices.
They should take measures, as they see appropriate, to ensure that use of nomadic devices by
drivers while driving does not compromise traffic safety and, in particular, identify and take
necessary actions to prevent unintended use or misuse of visual entertainment systems by
drivers while driving (e.g. movies, TV, video games).
7. GLOSSARY
Advanced Driver Assistance Systems (ADAS): Systems which are designed to support the
driving task on the level of vehicle manoeuvring by providing specific, information, warnings,
support or actions, being relevant for immediate driver action.
Aftermarket Systems: Systems which are fitted into a vehicle not during, but after its
production.
Context of use: Users, tasks, equipment (hardware, software and materials), and the physical
and social environments in which a product is used (ISO 9241-11, 1998)
Distraction: Attention given to a non-driving related activity, typically to the detriment of
driving performance.
Display (noun): Device capable of presenting information to the driver
EXAMPLES: Visual displays (such as LCD screens), auditory displays (such as tones) and
tactile displays (such as pedal vibration).
EN 50 EN

Driving: Activity of the primary driving task and secondary tasks associated with or
supporting the primary driving task
Employer: Person or organisation that has a contract with an employee
NOTE: Those employers addressed by these principles require the employees to drive as part
of their job.
EXAMPLES: fleet managers, taxi companies, delivery companies, emergency service
organisations
Hands-free: With no need to permanently hold with the hand any component of the system
Information related to driving: Information on aspects of the vehicle which are mandatory
or which are related to safety or which are related to the road and traffic environment and
driver related infrastructure services
NOTE: the information will be presented by means of a display; e.g. a visual or auditory
display
EXAMPLES: tyre and brake parameters, proximity of other vehicles, route guidance,
congestion information, ice warning, speed limits, parking information
EXAMPLES of information not related to driving include news, entertainment and advertising
In-vehicle information and communication systems: provide the driver with information or
communication either not related to driving (e.g. news, music) or related to driving but not
relevant for immediate, time critical driver action (e.g. traffic messages, navigation map, route
guidance).
Installation: Fitting of systems and sub-systems within the vehicle including loading of
software
NOTE: Systems which are fully pre-installed do not require these operations
Maintenance: Action(s) to enhance or continue the product’s operation
NOTE: Surface dusting and cleaning (which may apply to other in-vehicle equipment) is not
included within the term “maintenance”.
EXAMPLES: replacement of sub-systems (e.g. batteries, licenses, software) periodic cleaning
and checking and calibration procedures
Malfunction: Departure from the expected range of operation during system use as intended
by the manufacturer
EXAMPLE: External signal loss or loss of sensor calibration data reducing the accuracy of a
route guidance system.
Manoeuvring: The longitudinal and lateral control of the vehicle relative to the traffic
environment.
Nomadic devices: Non stationary devices which accompany people whilst travelling.
EN 51 EN

EXAMPLES: mobile phones, Personal Digital Assistants (PDA)
Point-of-sale (PoS): Access point for the potential buyer to the person or organisation
offering systems for sale
EXAMPLES: Car dealer (for OEM equipment); shop (for after-market equipment) website,
helpline or telephone sales point
Primary driving control: Control which is directly necessary to drive a vehicle.
Primary driving task: Activities that the driver has to undertake while driving in navigating,
manoeuvring and handling a vehicle including steering, braking and accelerating
Priority: Relative importance of two or more entities which determines their ranking in a
time sequence or emphasis of presentation (ISO/TS 16951, 2004)
Product information: All information that the driver has access to concerning the system
EXAMPLES: system instructions, technical specifications, promotional materials, packaging
Product-responsible organisation (PRO): Any participant in the production process, any
importer, supplier or any person putting his name, trademark or other distinguishing feature
on the product.
NOTE: Responsibility is shared between these organizations or persons.
Reasonably foreseeable misuse: Use of a product, process or service under conditions or for
purposes not intended by the manufacturer, but which can happen, induced by the product,
process or service in combination with, or as a result of, common human behaviour.
Sequence of interfaces: Related set of successive inputs/outputs also called a dialogue;
EXAMPLE: Entering a new destination or a phone number
Stationary: Having a zero speed relative to the vehicle’s supporting surface
Status: Available and/or active system mode(s)
EXAMPLE: “processing”
Support means that an action by the driver is enhanced by the system.
System instructions: Information about the system intended to teach the driver about the
system and assist in using it for specific purposes.
NOTE: Instructions may be in a printed form using text or pictorial information or may be
integrated within the system in the form of “help” functions or a tutorial.
System failure: State of non-operation or malfunction of the system
NOTE 1: Partial failure may involve some component, sub-function or mode of operation of
the system becoming inoperable or performing outside of the specifications intended by the
manufacturer.
EN 52 EN

NOTE 2: Total system failure renders all aspects of the system inoperative.
Visual information: Graphical, pictorial, textual or other messages presented to the driver
using the visual modality.
Vehicle in motion: vehicle with a speed above approximately 5 km/h 11 .
Vehicle-hire Company: Person or organisation that offers a contract to hire a vehicle
equipped with an in-vehicle information or communication system.
11
the value of 5 km/h is chosen for technical reasons because it is difficult to determine whether the
vehicle speed is zero.
EN 53 EN

ANNEX IV –
EUROBAROMETER.
USERS’ ATTITUDES
TOWARDS ELECTRONIC
ACTIVE SAFETY SYSTEMS
IN VEHICLES: QUALITATIVE
STUDY IN SIX EUROPEAN
COUNTRIES

Qualitative Study - Optem
Qualitative Study
USERS’ ATTITUDES TOWARDS
ELECTRONIC ACTIVE SAFETY
SYSTEMS IN VEHICLES
QUALITATIVE STUDY IN SIX EUROPEAN COUNTRIES
Fieldwork: March - April 2006
Publication: May 2006
This survey was requested by the Directorate General Information Society and
coordinated by the Directorate General Communication
This document does not represent the point of view of the European Commission.
The interpretations and opinions contained in it are solely those of the authors.
European
Commission

Qualitative Study
TABLE OF CONTENTS
INTRODUCTION 2
SUMMARY OF RESULTS 4
DETAILED RESULTS 9
CHAPTER I: VEHICLE USAGE AND DRIVING EXPERIENCE 10
CHAPTER II: VEHICLE CHOICE FACTORS 15
II.1 CRITERIA OF CHOICE FOR PRIVATE CUSTOMERS 16
II.1 CRITERIA OF CHOICE FOR PROFESSIONAL CUSTOMERS 19
CHAPTER III: GENERAL ATTITUDES TOWARDS CAR SAFETY 20
III.1 PERCEPTION OF UNSAFE SITUATIONS 21
III.2 POTENTIAL FACTORS FOR IMPROVED SAFETY 24
CHAPTER IV: KNOWLEDGE OF AND ATTITUDES TOWARDS ON-BOARD
ACTIVE SAFETY SYSTEMS 25
IV.1 SPONTANEOUS PERCEPTIONS RELATING TO THESE SYSTEMS AND NOTIONS OF
ACTIVE AND PASSIVE SAFETY 26
IV.2 OWNERSHIP OF SUCH SYSTEMS, REASONS FOR ADOPTING THEM AND
POTENTIAL IMPORTANCE FOR THE FUTURE 29
CHAPTER V: ATTITUDES TOWARDS DIFFERENT ON-BOARD ELECTRONIC
ACTIVE SAFETY SYSTEMS 32
A. ABS – ANTI-BLOCKING SYSTEM 33
B. ESP – ELECTRONIC STABILITY PROGRAM 33
C. ADAPTIVE HEADLIGHTS 34
D. SPEED ALERT 35
E. DRIVER CONDITION MONITORING 36
F. LANE DEPARTURE WARNING 37
G. OBSTACLE AND COLLISION WARNING 39
H. LOCAL DANGER WARNING 40
I. RTTI-REAL-TIME TRAVEL AND TRAFFIC INFORMATION 40
J. E-CALL 41
K. ASSESSMENT OF THE INTEREST SHOWN IN THE VARIOUS SYSTEMS 42
CHAPTER VI: SOURCES OF INFORMATION AND PURCHASE INCENTIVES 44
VI.1 SOURCES OF INFORMATION DEEMED USEFUL AND CREDIBLE 45
VI.2 POTENTIAL PURCHASE STIMULI 48
ANNEXES: 51
ANNEX I: PARTNER INSTITUTES 52
ANNEX II: COMPOSITION OF THE SAMPLES 54
ANNEX III: DISCUSSION AND INTERVIEW GUIDES 57
Users’ attitudes towards electronic active safety systems in vehicles – May 2006 1

Qualitative Study
INTRODUCTION
Users’ attitudes towards electronic active safety systems in vehicles – May 2006 2

Qualitative Study
� The European Commission – Directorate-General Information Society – has commissioned
OPTEM and its partners in six European countries 1 to carry out a study on the subject of
electronic active safety systems in vehicles, among different categories of road users.
This study was conducted under the aegis of the Framework Contract Eurobarometer “Qualitative
Studies” 2 .
� The study’s main objectives are to assess :
� The present situation in terms of information and knowledge of systems now existing or
being developed
� The nature and intensiveness of expectations, whether active or latent, in this respect
� The role which certain professional actors can play as influencers and promoters of the
development of safety through these systems
� Orientations and means of information and communication that can be envisaged
� In each of the countries concerned, the study is based on a combination of group discussions and
personal in depth interviews.
� 2 group discussions with car owners : for one of the groups, owners of high and medium-high
range cars (mostly bought new) ; for the other, owners of low and medium-low range cars
(bought new or second-hand).
� A series of 20 interviews with :
• Professional drivers
• Vehicle fleet managers
• Car salesmen (of makes characteristic of the local market)
• Driving school teachers
• Pedestrians (non users or rare users of cars)
� This document is the overall report of the six-country study.
� It includes, in the annexes:
� The identity of OPTEM’s partner institutes in each country.
� The composition of the samples interviewed (in March and April 2006).
� The discussion and interview guides used for the different categories of respondents.
1 Germany, France, Italy, Poland, Finland and the United Kingdom
2 Framework contract set up and managed by Directorate-General Communication – A/4
Users’ attitudes towards electronic active safety systems in vehicles – May 2006 3

Qualitative Study
SUMMARY OF RESULTS
Users’ attitudes towards electronic active safety systems in vehicles – May 2006 4

Qualitative Study
� The attitudes of motorists in the different countries towards electronic safety systems are
remarkably homogenous, despite a few differences of a cultural nature or referring to an unequal
maturity of the various markets as regards cars.
� These attitudes are characterised by considerable ambiguity, or indeed a paradox between the
declared importance of motoring safety in the rational discourse and the fact that it actually
plays a minor role as a selection criterion when choices are made. More generally, it appears
obvious that motorists are disinclined to pay for safety equipment offered as optional extras.
� This paradox stems from the complexity of the mechanisms involved in choosing a car and the
strong overlapping in this choice of rational and emotional components that could come into
conflict and generate unexpected choices. There are several levels at which this can be explained:
� First of all there is the perceived high level of safety in modern cars, both in terms of design
and equipment, which means that these days there are no longer any notable differences in
safety between models of the same segment.
Such differences do continue to exist between a small car and a high-range saloon, basically
on account of the size. On the other hand, equipment is tending to become characteristic
across the board, as illustrated by the example of airbags and ABS.
This trend in the market corresponds to a basic demand of motorists, who regard safety as a
right and no longer accept the idea of there possibly being any social inequality in this respect:
it does not seem ethically justifiable for some items of equipment to be reserved for expensive
vehicles. Some people also feel that this argument could also be a way of “kicking the ball into
touch” when they are confronted with the possibility of having to pay for an accessory as an
optional extra.
� The problem of price, which remains a fundamental criterion in the purchase of a car, is also
one of the keys to motorists’ circumspection as regards electronic safety equipment, which
includes sophisticated, and therefore expensive, systems. These therefore often come into
conflict with other accessories, the benefit of which can be grasped more immediately.
Between a safety accessory, which one would like never to have to use, and an accessory that
improves the quality of life in day-to-day use, the motorist tends to prioritise the latter.
This has two kinds of consequences for electronic safety systems:
• The motorist will only choose those he deems to be absolutely useful and necessary
bearing in mind the use he makes of his car.
• He will ask that these useful and necessary systems not be optional extras, but be included
in the purchase price. Some people even think that these should be made legally
obligatory, and therefore be fitted in a compulsory fashion in all vehicles.
� Aside from the price, there are other, more psychological, but also important, obstacles to
the adoption of the systems in question. They stem partly from the image of electronics and
partly from the effects of these systems on the driving experience.
Anything electronic is reckoned to be expensive and fragile. Non-reliability is especially
damning for systems supposed to guarantee safety.
The effects on driving experience are even more conflicting:
Users’ attitudes towards electronic active safety systems in vehicles – May 2006 5

Qualitative Study
• Whilst safety systems are valued when they are perceived as giving the driver assistance
and aid in situations and circumstances that are dangerous but beyond his control, on the
other hand, they are perceived as unbearably moralising or a curb on one’s freedom
when they aim to crack down on contravening behaviour and – even more so – impact on
driving. In this respect, they generate a feeling of dispossession which is intolerable for
most motorists, and involve a risk of the driver’s responsibility being removed.
• The perception of a whole host of warnings – sound, visual, or mechanical – during
driving is considered to be counter-productive, or even dangerous, and prompts the desire
to disconnect these systems (there being, in addition, a widespread request for this
possibility of disconnection).
� More generally, the driver is moved by two contradictory desires:
� He needs to be assured of the presence of a number of accessories that are judged to be
essential.
But
� He wants to be able to forget this equipment in a normal driving situation, since it refers to
accidents, which is a situation one tends to want to conceal.
� The various safety systems submitted to the judgement of motorists are given very wideranging
appraisals:
� Some are considered as wholly essential and indispensable. In this respect, motorists then
say that they should be obligatory – and thus fitted as standard and included in the price of the
vehicle.
� Others are regarded as interesting for some kinds of use of the car and may then be
envisaged by certain types of drivers. However, even in this case, the proclivity to purchase
will depend substantially on the price and image of the equipment.
It appeared clearly that image also plays a role as regards safety. It may be flattering for a
customer to have this or that item of equipment, which is talked about or reckoned to be very
sophisticated or effective. The best illustration of this is the desirability of equipment
perceived as linked to GPS.
This means that the argument in favour of these systems need not be too simplistic and
concern all the dimensions of perception. Bearing in mind the obstacle that the price of these
systems represents, their inclusion in a well-composed pack is also a way of getting them
accepted more readily.
� Among the systems that were brought to the interviewees’ attention:
� ESP is probably destined, fairly swiftly, to enjoy the favour currently enjoyed by ABS –
although it should be recalled that it took fifteen years, and the generalisation of its fitting as a
standard item, for the latter to acquire the image of an indispensable item of equipment.
The electronic emergency alarm seems destined to enjoy an identical support.
� Other items of equipment arouse a more circumspect interest and clearly minority option
purchase intentions at the moment:
• Adaptive headlights.
Users’ attitudes towards electronic active safety systems in vehicles – May 2006 6

Qualitative Study
• Driver condition monitoring.
• Warning of dangers in the local area the driver is driving through and real-time
information and navigation system – perceived as improvements of or additions to GPS,
and less for the safety provided than for the comfort and convenience afforded the driver,
in particular to enable him to choose an alternative route in time.
• Obstacle and collision warning – system that leads to more questions and scepticism.
� Lane departure warning and speed alert only meet with a low level of interest, and are often
even rejected.
� It should be observed, moreover, that these systems should each be promoted for the specific
benefit they are liable to bring – without seeking first to fix in people’s minds a more general
concept of active safety which is still very obscure.
� No fundamental differences in attitudes towards electronic safety equipment are seen between
the countries, be it positive motivations or obstacles in their regard. When there are differences,
they tend to express disparities in maturity between the markets (which are liable to fade in time)
rather than deep-seated cultural differences.
� Likewise, the different categories of participants in traffic do not prove to be highly
discriminatory. Their attitudes often reflect different weightings in hierarchical systems. It is more
membership of certain sociological categories (criteria of age, sex and family status) and the use
made of the car that determine attitudes. This is what explains the fact that in the end it is the level
of range of the car owned that emerges as the most differentiating criterion among private car
owners.
� The attitudes of professional users do not appear to be radically different. Lorry drivers or
drivers of commercial vehicles, as well as their fleet managers, however, seem inclined to
recognise more a specific interest in ESP, systems for the monitoring of the driver’s state of
alertness, warnings of hazards in the area to be driven through, and real-time information and
navigation systems.
� As regards the potential opinion formers for these systems, in fact they barely seem like
active influencers in the current state of affairs.
For car salesmen, it seems clear that most of them will not take the commercial risk of arguing
strongly in favour of safety devices, rather than other more immediately valued items of
equipment, if they think that customers are not especially taken by them already.
Driving-school instructors often show themselves to be more reluctant than motorists themselves
about new systems, since they fear the loss of inhibitions and the removal of a sense of
responsibility that these systems can cause.
In the eyes of potential customers, they do not constitute privileged sources of information: car
salesmen because they are considered to be biased a priori, and driving instructors, though less
markedly so, because they are not always recognised as being competent when it comes to
technological matters.
Users’ attitudes towards electronic active safety systems in vehicles – May 2006 7

Qualitative Study
� The sources that are judged a priori to be credible include public bodies (but for awarenessraising
measures of a general nature rather than for actively promoting a particular type of
equipment), car manufacturers through the technical information they distribute (including on
their websites), and the specialist media – apart from word of mouth, which is very important
when it comes to cars.
Automobile clubs and consumers’ associations are given varying appraisals according to the
country. Insurance companies, of which many consumers are distrustful, can be acknowledged to
be authoritative as regards automobile statistics – and would be effective through reductions in
premiums.
� Financial incentives could of course encourage the adoption of safety systems – at least for
those that seem to be most attractive and are regarded as being of specific interest.
However, they should be quite substantial in order really to prompt users – or rather only
some of them – to take the initiative to choose such systems rather than wait for them to become
generalised as standard features.
Users’ attitudes towards electronic active safety systems in vehicles – May 2006 8

Qualitative Study
DETAILED RESULTS
Users’ attitudes towards electronic active safety systems in vehicles – May 2006 9

Qualitative Study
CHAPTER I:
VEHICLE USAGE AND
DRIVING EXPERIENCE
Users’ attitudes towards electronic active safety systems in vehicles – May 2006 10

Qualitative Study
� It will be recalled first of all that a sample had been put together for this study which would be
liable to take in all possible attitudes regarding electronic safety systems fitted in cars, taking into
account the points of view of the different types of road user, whose interests could be conflicting:
� Motorists, who were recruited in two distinct target groups in order to gain an understanding
of the various ways in which cars are used and to represent the main types of driver:
• Owners of low- to mid-range models, whose annual mileage is on average around 10,000
km or less. These are people who mainly drive in urban areas – with the exception
sometimes of one or two long journeys per year. For most, these drivers nonetheless use
their car every day (for travel between home and work, dropping off and picking up the
children, shopping and leisure activities).
• Owners of mid- to high-range models, generally average or intensive drivers (clocking up
between 15,000 and 50,000 km, with quite a high concentration in the 20-35,000 km
bracket), often using their car both for personal and professional requirements and
regularly driving on main roads and motorways.
� Professional drivers, lorry drivers, deliverymen, taxi drivers, all obviously clocking up a high
mileage (up to more than 100,000 km per year for the former) with differences linked to the
activity (taxis are used more in urban areas, lorry drivers operate more on main roads and
motorways, in their own country and abroad, deliverymen in one or the other of these
environments) and fleet managers.
� Potential opinion formers – sellers of new cars and driving instructors – who reflect both
the opinion of motorists, which they are, and that of motorists or future motorists whom they
meet in their professional life and to whom they are prompted to make recommendations.
� Pedestrians who only very rarely use the car, if at all – among whom we can make out two
main types:
• “Anti-drivers”
These are people who refuse to drive and generally do not have a licence. They are either
people living in a city where they feel they do not need a car (they use public transport), or
people who think that they cannot afford to have one and run it. Generally speaking, they
also regard driving as too stressful. These people rationalise their behaviour by valuing it
as environmentally responsible.
“Living in a city to own a car is not a must. It would add to more pollution and to traffic…
indeed I don’t own a car. I walk, ride my bike, use public transport to relocate in Milan
and its suburbs, metro and buses. I use the train to reach extra-urban destinations. I fly
longer legs. I certainly think that most people in a city should use public transport and
avoid creating traffic jams together with higher levels of pollution…” (Pedestrians, Italy)
In both cases, there are individuals who are very reluctant vis-à-vis the car – which they
accuse of all kinds of evils – and driving – which they regard as stressful and potentially
dangerous. In all the countries this group harbours a latent aggressiveness towards
motorists and considers itself threatened by the omnipresence of cars in the city and the
cult of the car.
“I don’t feel safe, there is too much carelessness on the road, no attention is paid to
pedestrians. There is a “car cult” not a “pedestrian cult” in Poland” (Pedestrians,
Poland)
“Car drivers are more and more aggressive. Not only car drivers in fact but cyclists and
pedestrians as well” (Pedestrians, Germany)
Users’ attitudes towards electronic active safety systems in vehicles – May 2006 11

Qualitative Study
“Car drivers know no law: they don’t stop at zebra crossings although they should, they
stick to the bumper of the car in front so that you cannot cross between two cars”
(Pedestrians, Germany)
• Sporadic drivers.
These are people who enjoy the car for its qualities of convenience and practicality, but
feel that its use on a daily basis is too restricting (congested cities, problems for parking) or
too costly.
Their car may be used daily by their partner, with they themselves only driving every now
and then (to relieve the main driver on long journeys, or to go shopping at the
hypermarket).
Pedestrians use public transport a lot and are often also cyclists, which puts them in another
position in relation to car traffic, in which, however, they also feel they are placed at a
disadvantage.
� As could be expected, it is more the belonging to these types of road users, than according to the
countries, that the differences in attitudes regarding the subject of the study are established.
Of course between the countries there are differences of a cultural nature (between Italian
motorists who are very keen on in-car equipment and British motorists who seem to ignore it,
between French drivers, who have speed prohibitions, and German drivers, who consider
motorways without speed limits as an area of freedom) which we will come back to in the analysis
when they are significant. However, overall the differences in attitudes to safety and electronic
active safety equipment are expressed more in function of socio-demographic criteria and criteria
of use:
� Between men and women, between families and people who do not have children.
� Between car users in urban areas, average drivers – essentially owners of low- to mid-range
models – and intensive drivers – essentially owners of mid-to high-range models.
� Before tackling the subject of safety equipment, we set about analysing the emotional context of
driving which serves as a backdrop for it and provides the key to understanding it.
It will be seen first and foremost that all the motorists questioned associate driving with positive
emotions. The negative aspects, mentioned in a more secondary fashion, are essentially of a
rational nature and less directly linked to driving itself (difficulty of finding parking places,
rising costs). Driving pleasure presents many facets and can be experienced in very different
ways:
� For everyone (apart from the pedestrians mentioned above), the car is first and foremost
associated with a feeling of freedom. For motorists, it is the feeling of total independence in
relation to the timetables and constraints of public transport. For professional drivers, in
particular lorry drivers, it is the feeling of occupying a reserved territory where you do not
have to answer to anyone.
“Pleasure, this sense of freedom, you can decide yourself what to do. I like driving (…)”
(Professional drivers, Poland)
Users’ attitudes towards electronic active safety systems in vehicles – May 2006 12

Qualitative Study
� Driving pleasure can also be linked more to situations – the pleasure of travel in optimal
conditions of comfort – or more to driving itself (the pleasure of control of the machine, and a
liking of speed in the country with no speed limit on the motorways). In the former case, the
motorist’s mentality is more that of a passenger of the vehicle he is driving, whilst in the latter
he is more the driver.
It is worth stressing that even professional drivers – and in particular lorry drivers, for whom
driving is their work and who are at the wheel day in day out – continue to regard driving as a
pleasure.
� The constant increase in the level of equipment in cars for greater comfort and enhanced safety
should be considered as the key to the very positive way in which driving is experienced. But
driving pleasure also stems from the conditions of the context: the positive feelings generally refer
to optimal conditions: a summer’s day, a dry road, a journey made for pleasure, not much traffic
on the road.
Conversely, displeasure and a certain feeling of insecurity take hold when the conditions
deteriorate: poor weather, poor visibility, heavy traffic.
“Driving in heavy traffic during rush hour is really unpleasant. On the other hand, driving at
night in summer, when there are only a couple of other people on the road is the most enjoyable
driving ever” (Car owners – Medium-high range, Finland)
Certain situations are regarded as especially anxiety-inducing by some categories:
� Night driving (mentioned in particular by women and elderly people).
� Driving in towns and cities (cited by some taxi drivers, because stress factors abound).
“You always have motorbikes and bikes on the wrong side of the road, or running in the taxi
reserved lanes, pedestrians crossing wherever, disregarding zebra crossing or lights… these
are my daily worries” (Professional drivers, Italy).
� Apart from the conditions of the context, motorists regard the other categories of road users as a
risk factor, since they constitute the uncontrollable element of the traffic (although every driver
feels both safe and responsible as regards his own behaviour): it is always “others” who do foolish
things, exceed the speed limit, or commit offences.
“The worst thing about driving, the thing that worries me most is that which I can’t control: other
people on the roads. You can be a safe, sensible, law abiding driver, but if a young idiot paying no
attention to the road drives past you it’s in God’s hands” (Car owners – Low-medium range,
United Kingdom)
It was noted in particular, and across the board in all countries, that some categories of road users
are considered to be a particular danger – for themselves and for others:
� Owners of two-wheeled vehicles (unpredictable and reckless, reinterpreting the traffic rules).
� Elderly people (hesitant, with poorer reflexes, pedestrians or drivers).
� Beginner drivers, especially young men (too reckless, driving too fast, not sufficiently aware
of the danger).
� Children (unpredictable, the risk of them not being seen).
Users’ attitudes towards electronic active safety systems in vehicles – May 2006 13

Qualitative Study
� Lorries (very powerful, feel as though they own the road), in the view of motorists (but more
so motorists – lacking the control of the professional – in the view of lorry drivers).
� Pedestrians are obviously a case apart. They are the weak link in the traffic context and feel
potentially threatened both by the shortfalls in infrastructure (not enough rights of way or cycle
paths) and by the perceived aggressiveness of motorists, which seems to them to reflect the
expression of a general increase in aggressiveness in society.
� The comments made by potential opinion formers (driving instructors and car salesmen) on this
introductory theme provide an indirect confirmation of the elements cited above – they were
questioned on what they thought motorists’ feelings were on the issues raised. They sometimes
mention the wide range of attitudes and behaviour according to the drivers, but generally without
providing a different perspective.
Users’ attitudes towards electronic active safety systems in vehicles – May 2006 14

Qualitative Study
CHAPTER II:
VEHICLE CHOICE FACTORS
Users’ attitudes towards electronic active safety systems in vehicles – May 2006 15

Qualitative Study
II.1 CRITERIA OF CHOICE FOR PRIVATE CUSTOMERS
� The choice of car is the result of a balancing of the purchaser’s specific needs, bearing in mind his
budget and his particular relationship with the car, which generate a number of priorities. It is
these priorities that will serve as criteria for choice between the models.
� In this respect, some dimensions prove to be decisive for all motorists in all countries:
� Aesthetic attractiveness as an inevitable filter for interest and – to a lesser degree – a factor
of enhanced social standing.
� The price – always considered in function of the composition of the equipment offered as
standard (impression of “having something for one’s money”).
� The make which acts as a guarantee and a marker on a number of decisive dimensions
(quality, comfort) and acts through its image and through the personal experiences of the
motorist.
� Beyond these fundamental criteria, we note:
� The growing importance of the demand for comfort in choices. This importance is expressed
both in terms of space and interior capacity, with a growing demand (especially noticeable in
France) for modular adjustability, and in convenience of on-board equipment.
The importance of the equipment is all the more considerable in that it acts both at a rational
level – through its direct influence on driving comfort – and at a more emotive level via the
status effect (the effect of an enhanced standing provided by vehicles fitted out with plenty of
devices and/or equipped with leading accessories that can act as a social marker). Thus the
infatuation for ESP in several countries seems to stem from its upmarket image as much as
from its real usefulness.
� The declining importance of performance levels, linked to speed restrictions on motorways in
most countries, and especially noticeable in Member States whose authorities have undertaken
tough measures to combat speeding (France and Finland). However, they remain a not
inconsiderable criterion for choice that can come into play at various levels:
• For the owners of mid- to high-range vehicles as a proof of power, expressed chiefly in
speed (in Germany in particular).
• As a corollary of comfort, in liaison with certain types of equipment which “cost power”
(automatic gearbox).
• As a vehicle for safety when power is considered as a reserve. This argument is mentioned
more keenly by motorists with low- to mid-range vehicles to justify the fixing of a
minimum power, and generally in France, where power is not justifiable by speed.
� The differentiated importance of the criteria of durability and solidity.
Day-to-day reliability is obviously an imperative requirement. Durability and solidity are still
fundamental for German motorists, their requirement referring strongly to cultural factors. In
France some car salesmen think that motorists have a tendency to renew their car more often
than before, which minimises the importance of this criterion. In Germany salesmen establish
the opposite hypothesis – the economic context tending to encourage people to space out their
purchases, all the more so since modern cars have progressed in leaps and bounds as regards
quality.
Users’ attitudes towards electronic active safety systems in vehicles – May 2006 16

Qualitative Study
� Two criteria deserve special analysis, consumption and safety. In both cases, these are criteria
mentioned very little by motorists spontaneously (when they are mentioned, it is more in a
secondary manner, “in addition to” other criteria cited with more emphasis) but the importance of
which is deemed to be decisive when they are suggested in the exploration – or when they are
presented in the form of a list:
� Consumption is obviously important because it has a direct influence on the costs of using the
car and the increase in petrol prices of recent months is viewed with some alarm. This leads to
a number of motorists saying that they will pay extra attention to this criterion in the future.
However, motorists feel relatively impotent vis-à-vis consumption, as soon as they choose a
size of vehicle determined by their needs, the differences in consumption between models of
the same engine power seeming to be relatively minimal.
In several countries (Germany and Italy), salesmen note that consumption is certainly a
traditional question raised by customers, but that it does not really have any effect on their
choice.
“The clients are still asking, but in fact it does not have any influence on their decision.
Nowadays you don’t find cars which use 30 litres per hundred anymore” (Car salesmen,
Germany)
Finally, motorists genuinely worried about consumption opt for diesel.
� Safety
The problem of safety is even more complex. Bearing in mind the potentially dangerous
character of a car and the responsibility that motorists shoulder for others, it seems vital to
have a vehicle offering the greatest possible safety.
However, the arbitrational value of safety is diminished due to the fact that new vehicles
from the same segment are reputed to have a relatively equivalent level of safety – with an
image bonus accorded to some makes, especially high-range German makes. This observation
is valid in all the countries.
“It is not a criteria any more, all vehicles have them” (Car owners – Medium-high range,
France)
“I am fairly confident I’m not driving a death trap, and that’s all I feel I need to know” (Car
owners – Medium-high range, United Kingdom)
“I don’t think you ask about what brakes it has or whether it’s got sufficient crumple room
when you’re buying a car. You’re too busy thinking about what it looks like and the way it
feels to drive. The safety issue aren’t top of mind” (Car owners – Low-medium range, United
Kingdom)
“Cars are getting safer and safer. The differences between makes are disappearing. When a
builder starts with a safety equipment, the others follow. It started with one airbag for the
driver, then one for the passenger. Now you are surrounded with airbags” (Car owners –
Low-medium range, Germany)
“We all have big and new enough cars to ensure high class safety features. It is the size
(model) and quality class that ensure safety automatically” (Car owners – Medium-high
range, Finland)
We will return in more detail to the subject of safety as regards equipment.
Users’ attitudes towards electronic active safety systems in vehicles – May 2006 17

Qualitative Study
� As regards the criteria of choice among motorists, there is no significant difference between the
countries. The differences are subtle. Price is a fundamental criterion in all countries, but is an
even more sensitive factor in Poland; the standing of the make also seems to have a greater import
there.
� Rather than the national origin, it is the type of motorists that generated the order of priorities:
� Family customers and women using a second car attach greater importance to the criteria of
space, capacity and safety.
� Intensive drivers, who own cars in the medium to high range and who drive more on
motorways, give greater importance to performance levels.
� Low- to medium-range motorists (whose vehicles are less well equipped) pay more attention
to the equipment fitted as standard.
Conversely:
� Drivers basically buying a second-hand vehicle for its price – especially if they are young
drivers and people only driving around within a city – can put the importance of safety
equipment into perspective.
Users’ attitudes towards electronic active safety systems in vehicles – May 2006 18

Qualitative Study
II.2 CRITERIA OF CHOICE FOR PROFESSIONAL CUSTOMERS
� The criteria for choice used by professional drivers and their priorities obviously differ from those
of motorists:
� The make takes on a predominant importance, both on account of the intrinsic qualities of its
products and on account of service and customer relationship aspects (sales policy, discount,
after-sales service).
� Solidity and durability are fundamental. They also favour the choice of certain makes,
especially Mercedes in Germany in the case of lorries and taxis.
“As a taxi Mercedes is the most resistant. I mean it is better for a 24/7 use” (Professional
drivers, Germany)
“I wanted to stop changing vehicle every 2 years because we have a whole system aboard
which you have to take apart and then put together again” (Professional drivers, France)
� Professional drivers view the space criterion in a totally different way from motorists, and this
view varies according to the use to which the vehicle is put. Loading capacity tends to be more
important for lorries, whilst passenger compartment and luggage space are prioritised in the
case of taxis. Cabin capacity is sometimes mentioned by users of heavy goods vehicles.
� Performance levels do not really have any meaning for commercial vehicles, which should
above all have loading capacity.
� Likewise, little importance is attached to the aesthetic appearance here (except for some taxi
drivers on account of a positive reference to a brand image).
� For these customers safety takes on a special meaning to the extent that they travel large
distances, in all weather, and assume responsibility for other road users (customers in taxis,
children or adults transported in coaches, other motorists). The awareness of this responsibility
is especially strong when the company has had the experience of an accident that can be
traumatic for the fleet manager (an accident involving a school coach resulting in victims, for
example).
The importance of safety is also a factor justifying the choice of a particular make.
� Consumption is one of the criteria taken into account to determine the cost. For all
commercial vehicles, it relates back to the choice for diesel.
� Comfort is also cited in these target groups, even if it is not as important as for the target
groups of motorists.
For fleet managers, it is with a view to an improvement in drivers’ working conditions –
which also responds to a concern for safety (comfort of the seats or the cabin).
For taxis, it is a commercial argument for customer comfort.
� Finally, it must be noted that the influence of employee drivers on the choice of their vehicle is
very variable and often seems limited. It is the boss who chooses on the basis of criteria that are by
and large economic, the vehicle being a working tool and a major investment.
“The ‘governor’ (boss) isn’t interested in our views beyond whether we’re comfortable enough
and we’ve got a good radio. To be honest that’s all out of our hands” (Professional drivers,
United Kingdom)
Users’ attitudes towards electronic active safety systems in vehicles – May 2006 19

Qualitative Study
CHAPTER III:
GENERAL ATTITUDES TOWARDS
CAR SAFETY
Users’ attitudes towards electronic active safety systems in vehicles – May 2006 20

Qualitative Study
III.1 PERCEPTION OF UNSAFE SITUATIONS
� Generally speaking, motorists say that they feel safe driving. It is even the general opinion that
this is a condition sine qua non for being a good driver:
“Usually I feel secure when I drive. Otherwise I would be afraid and I would not drive” (Car
owners – Low-medium range, Germany)
“I guess it’s such an everyday thing, driving, that I’ve stopped considering my vulnerability when
I’m doing it. I don't really think about it” (Car owners – Medium-high range, United Kingdom)
� This feeling refers both to the high level of safety of modern vehicles and to the confidence that
motorists have in their own ability to drive (well). It can also play a part in the ability to hide
certain inevitable risk factors so as to be mentally in a position to drive well. This is the case for
example of owners of small cars who know that the size of their vehicle can potentially be a
danger.
“I’m very aware when I’m driving my (Smart) car that if I crash it I’ll be in a lot of trouble” (Car
owners – Low-medium range, United Kingdom)
� However, some situations are likely to create a latent feeling of insecurity, or are quite simply
anxiety-producing. These situations are cited in all countries in a fairly homogenous manner.
Basically these are:
� Poor weather conditions – rain, fog, snow, black ice – which led to problems of visibility
and road holding resulting in a fear of losing control of the vehicle.
� Night driving (especially harrowing for women, elderly people and more generally those who
do not drive very much).
� The appearance of unforeseeable obstacles on the road (animals, for example).
� Conditions of dense traffic, particularly when there are many lorries and the negotiation of
areas where roadworks are being carried out.
� Situations in which the driver’s concentration lapses, particularly those linked to fatigue (in
Poland, motorists add situations of psychological stress). Using the telephone at the wheel is
also reckoned to contribute to lack of attention.
More hypothetically, since fortunately it is only rare, the risk of mechanical/technical failure
(brakes failing, tyre blow-out) is also cited. This is alarming on account of its unpredictability.
� Rather than between the countries, it is between types of drivers that differences can appear in
the kind of anxiety-inducing situations:
� People with dependants say that they are more concerned when they have children in the car.
� Women and elderly people often fear night driving.
Users’ attitudes towards electronic active safety systems in vehicles – May 2006 21

Qualitative Study
� The owners of low- to medium-range models say that they are more easily stressed in certain
conditions than the owners of high-range models. This refers to the fact that the latter are often
people who drive a lot, are confident of their reflexes and their ability to deal with all driving
situations, and they feel that they have vehicles which are particularly advanced in the field of
safety.
� For professional drivers, the reactions are similar although with some differences:
� Truckers – and fleet managers – tend to assert in all countries that they never feel that they
lack safety. For them this is a way of affirming their status as “professionals” and replying to
the latent preconceptions existing in their regard.
By way of justification they point to their considerable driving experience, their sense of
responsibility, the safe nature of their vehicles (size, protective mass, and height of seat
enabling the driver to control the whole traffic situation). Fleet managers generally say that
they have confidence in the quality and conscientiousness of their drivers.
“You can see ahead and I like the feeling that you know what’s going on” (Professional
drivers, United Kingdom)
Drivers are particularly inclined to minimise the risk of falling asleep at the wheel, by
stressing the fact that break times are respected and checks are carried out (in the United
Kingdom the tough EU rules and regulations are cited in this regard).
However, some admit that the pressure of professional life can constitute a potential danger
and the feeling of being “the master of the road” can lead to risky behaviour.
“Because of the timetable we are always under pressure. A traffic jam can be quite stressing”
(Professional drivers, Germany)
British drivers can feel less safe when they have to drive on the right on the Continent.
Like motorists, they mention weather conditions as a stress factor (Finnish truckers seem to
fear the period at the beginning of the winter season) and they are particularly concerned about
what they see as the irresponsible behaviour of other categories of road users: motorists failing
to respect safety distances, motorcyclists appearing out of nowhere and riding too fast.
� Taxi drivers constitute the category least concerned by the feeling of insecurity, although they
feel responsible for the safety of their passengers in addition to their own, but generally they
feel that they have very well equipped and well maintained vehicles. Moreover, they tend to
drive in urban areas. Like lorry drivers, it is chiefly the behaviour of the other road users
(particularly children, pedestrians, cyclists riding against the traffic and crossing at points
other than zebra crossings) that seem to them to create risk.
� For driving instructors, some set themselves apart on this subject by asserting with a degree of
paradox that the safety of modern vehicles constitutes a risk in itself since it tends to take the edge
off the sense of danger, especially among beginner drivers, who can tend to have a feeling of
invulnerability (especially young men, who have a tendency to drive too fast). The comments
made by car salesmen, meanwhile, do not add any extra information.
� The question of the perception of situations of insecurity for other people gives rise to answers on
two levels:
� Groups of people, considered as a danger not only for themselves but also for others:
• Motorists in the minds of lorry drivers, lorry drivers in the minds of motorists.
Users’ attitudes towards electronic active safety systems in vehicles – May 2006 22

Qualitative Study
• Users of two-wheeled vehicles (cyclists in towns and cities, motorcyclists on the open
road).
• Pedestrians, particularly elderly people and children (in France and Finland, roller skaters
are included in this group).
“Sometimes you see children playing on the road. Once I even went over and told them not
to play in the middle of the road and that I would come back and check if they obey me or
not” (Car owners – Medium-high range, Finland)
� Groups of people deemed to be at a disadvantage in the modern traffic context (children,
elderly people, owners of two-wheeled vehicles).
To sum up: all drivers tend to regard others as potentially dangerous.
� As can be imagined, pedestrians who view themselves as the weak link in the traffic chain feel
especially threatened, as do cyclists (pedestrians often being alternatively pedestrians and
cyclists). This is all the more so since they feel there are not enough zebra crossings, or that roads
are poorly lit (Poland).
Users’ attitudes towards electronic active safety systems in vehicles – May 2006 23

Qualitative Study
III.2 POTENTIAL FACTORS FOR IMPROVED SAFETY
� Generally speaking, and in all countries, motorists feel that increased safety is above all a function
of the development of motorists’ behaviour (less aggressiveness, less speeding, more
assumption of responsibility) and an improved context (roads and rules).
� The improvement of vehicles is only mentioned on this subject very marginally (and more so by
professional drivers).
� On the other hand, considerable mention is made of the responsibility of the authorities on
several levels:
� Maintenance of the roads network – or its improvement (particularly in Poland).
� An improvement in road signs (here, too, an imperative demand made by Polish motorists)
and the generalisation of roundabouts.
� An improvement in the quality of motorists’ driving, thanks to regular driving training courses
and/or checks aimed at verifying the continued viability of the driver’s skills (especially for
older drivers). In some countries, interviewees even suggest improving the quality of driver
instruction, or putting back the age at which one is allowed to drive (Poland, United Kingdom)
or imposing certain limitations on young drivers.
� A more effective control of offences with a view to education (especially speeding offences,
observance of the safety distance, and – in the United Kingdom – driving without a licence).
� Finally it will be noted that in two countries (Finland and Germany) mention is made – in an
isolated fashion – of an improvement in bodywork design with a view to limiting the physical
damage caused to pedestrians in the event of a collision.
� Little is said about speed limits in this respect (apart from the request for the authorised speeds to
be observed more closely). This refers to various situations: from France, where the speed limit on
motorways is something that seems totally assimilated now (there is no question of this being
called into question), to Germany, where motorists are very attached to their freedom in this
respect.
Users’ attitudes towards electronic active safety systems in vehicles – May 2006 24

Qualitative Study
CHAPTER IV:
KNOWLEDGE OF AND ATTITUDES
TOWARDS ON-BOARD
ACTIVE SAFETY SYSTEMS
Users’ attitudes towards electronic active safety systems in vehicles – May 2006 25

Qualitative Study
IV.1 SPONTANEOUS PERCEPTIONS RELATING TO THESE SYSTEMS AND NOTIONS OF ACTIVE AND
PASSIVE SAFETY
� It will be noted first of all that motorists consider safety and what contributes towards it in the car
in a global manner, without making any distinction between:
� Active or passive safety.
� Equipment or design qualities (distortion zones).
� Electronic on-board systems and other systems (seat belts, airbags).
As for the distinction between active and passive safety, we see in all the countries that these
notions are (more or less) known by name, but that their meaning is by no means unequivocal.
Everyone has a personal explanation for the terms, which only occasionally tallies with the correct
definition. Thus some regard active safety as anything referring to a movement (deployment of the
airbags) or anything calling for an action on the part of the driver (including the care and
maintenance of the vehicle). In Finland, one participant even felt that colour was an element of
active safety.
“Passive safety, you don’t have anything to do, it’s done for you. Active safety, you are the one to
press the button” (Car owners. Low-medium range, France)
“Active safety is what you do voluntarily like fasten your seatbelt or stick to the speed limits,
passive safety is the reaction of the car when you brake, ABS, airbag, what happens
automatically” (Pedestrians, France)
“Active safety refers to what I can do to keep my car in full efficiency: check tyre pressure, do
regular servicing” (Car owners. Low-medium range, Italy)
“Active safety is something we are responsible for and passive safety is anything the car comes
equipped with. Passive safety depends on whether the car has seat belts, good tyres, power
steering whereas active safety depends on how we fasten those seat belts. It’s the safety that’s up
to us” (Car owners. Low-medium range, Poland)
� Professionals (drivers and fleet managers) only occasionally seem better informed than motorists
on this point.
“The passive systems exist but do hopefully not have to be used. Active is in use all the time”
(Professional drivers, Finland)
� The situation is more mixed among potential opinion formers.
Knowledge of these concepts is only partial among car salesmen – although better, it seems, in
Germany. This is also true of driving instructors: clear perception of those who were interviewed
in Germany and Finland, vague in the United Kingdom, irregular elsewhere.
� The pedestrians questioned for the most part have a very poor knowledge of the meaning of
active or passive safety.
� Although no country sets itself apart on account of a good understanding of these notions, the
confusion seems most widespread in the United Kingdom, where the very terms active and passive
safety were unknown to most people, in the case of both private individuals and professionals.
Users’ attitudes towards electronic active safety systems in vehicles – May 2006 26

Qualitative Study
� Despite the lack of structuring of the elements helping to bring about vehicle safety, motorists’
attitudes are unanimously positive towards all equipment liable to save lives (the opposite would
have been surprising). But at the same time, there is also unanimity in stressing the very good
level of modern vehicles in this respect – which could indicate that beyond the stereotype, there
is scarcely any active demand for improvements. Moreover, we saw above that safety
equipment is rarely a factor when it comes to choosing between one model and another, since all
are reckoned to be more or less equivalent on this point.
� Emphasis should be placed here on the absolutely imperative nature of safety in the comments
made by motorists, who regard it as a right and do not tolerate the idea that it might be reserved
for the most well off. This leads to a criticism of the policy of manufacturers who begin by fitting
safety equipment on top-of-the-range models. Motorists feel that safety equipment should be fitted
as standard from low-range models upwards. What is more, they see such a trend emerging with
reference to what is being done with the ABS and airbags, especially in Germany – a pioneer
market in this field. It will moreover be noted in this country that the ADAC, an automobile club
that lobbies on behalf of motorists, is currently arguing for ESP to be fitted as standard on all
vehicles.
� Across all the countries, two types of equipment repeatedly fuel people’s comments and should be
considered as indispensable: ABS and airbags.
The emblematic character of these items of equipment stems from the way they have been
distributed (initially the exclusive right of top-of-the-range models, then available as optional
extras, and now often fitted as standard on all vehicles). They are emblematic to the point of
possible excess. The airbag, for example, which was initially for the driver, then the front-seat
passenger, and then the rear-seat passengers, is now found in profusion, to the point – at times – of
being laughable (a question of who has the most).
� This subject leads to some critical reactions in relation to safety equipment being cited, which
refer in motorists’ minds to pernicious effects or abuses:
� A feeling of there being a flood of equipment that adds to the price of the car and may make
the purchaser think twice about its genuine usefulness (some items of equipment only seem to
have any purpose for very specific kinds of motorists).
� The fear of the fragility of electronics that acts at two levels – firstly in total contradiction to
the promise of safety offered by these items of equipment, then by causing the motorist to
worry about possible high repair costs.
� A possible conflict with driving pleasure, when it comes to equipment having a direct effect
on the way one drives.
We will come back to these hindrances during the analysis of attitudes to various types of
equipment.
� As regards the level of knowledge of on-board equipment and motorists’ understanding of the
way it works, it will be noted that:
� ABS and airbags are cited here almost unanimously in all the countries and categories of
interviewees (with the exception of the United Kingdom).
Users’ attitudes towards electronic active safety systems in vehicles – May 2006 27

Qualitative Study
It was already stated above that these are two systems currently considered as an established
right. In both cases, people are relatively aware of how they work even if, for ABS, some
inaccuracies or errors may register in people’s minds (for example some think that it shortens
the braking distance, but everyone knows about the anti-blocking effect of the wheels and the
fact that steerability is maintained).
� ESP is poised to acquire the same status as a leading item of equipment. This is already
the case in Germany and Finland, but is less obvious in the other countries, particularly in the
United Kingdom and Poland where only the most well-informed motorists (generally men)
mention it.
For ESP, however, there is a low level of understanding of how it works; it is the benefit –
maintaining one’s trajectory – that is perceived and valued. Unlike ABS – whose designation
is unique – that of ESP varies (ETC? ETS? VCR?) and there may be doubts and confusion
with systems about which those who talk about them wonder whether they fall under the same
principle (ASR?).
� Motorists from the different countries do mention a large number of other items of
equipment, but these are only cited by a few people in each category.
Mention will be made here by way of example (without any hierarchical value) of:
• All systems aimed at maintaining steerability (ASR…).
• Radar and camera systems (assisted parking, warning about failure to respect the safety
distance, removal of the blind spot).
• Tyre pressure monitoring systems – and “run flat” tyres.
• Self-directing headlights, new types of lighting (xenon).
• Heated windscreens.
• GPS (not directly associated with the notion of safety).
• And very marginally, the warning system for crossing lines.
� Professionals in the driving business – drivers and their managers – do not specifically set
themselves apart from motorists on this point, if only to the extent that knowledge of ABS and
ESP in this group is total.
� Among possible opinion formers, driving instructors have a very mixed level of knowledge.
Moreover, among them frequent reservations are voiced about these items of equipment, since
they fear that they give motorists, especially beginners, a feeling of invulnerability which is
potentially dangerous.
� On the other hand, salesmen are generally well informed, especially when they are selling highrange
makes (Audi, Mercedes and BMW).
� As could be expected, pedestrians only have a limited idea of on-board safety systems. However,
they are generally also familiar with ABS and airbags in all the countries.
Users’ attitudes towards electronic active safety systems in vehicles – May 2006 28

Qualitative Study
IV.2 OWNERSHIP OF SUCH SYSTEMS, REASONS FOR ADOPTING THEM AND POTENTIAL
IMPORTANCE FOR THE FUTURE
� The degree to which vehicles are equipped with safety systems varies according to the country,
the level of range and the quality of the vehicle (new or second hand):
� Almost all vehicles in the medium to high range, a majority of vehicles in the low to medium
range, and all vehicles that were bought new, were fitted with ABS and airbags.
This is especially the case in Germany (where only two owners of vehicles in the medium to
high range purchased second hand did not have ABS), Italy and Finland.
Conversely in the United Kingdom, motorists even seem to have difficulty identifying the
equipment fitted in their car (albeit apart from ABS, which thus confirms its character as a
leading item of equipment).
“To be honest, other than ABS I can’t think what active safety would cover. So I don't know”
(Car owners – Low-medium range, United Kingdom)
In Poland, only ABS is mentioned significantly, here, too, as standard.
It will be noted that in almost all cases these items of equipment had been acquired with the
vehicle in which they were fitted as standard or offered as a free optional extra during a
promotional offer.
Therefore, they had not played a decisive role in the purchase: the customer acquires the
equipment fitted on the model he has chosen. It is more the wealth of the equipment (in the
broad sense – comfort and safety) that is an important criterion in choosing between several
models.
The exception to this rule is the case of some people having had a specific problem that
prompted them to make a particular request (for example an owner of a BMW in Italy who
had had a problem attributed to the rear-wheel drive and who absolutely wanted ESP on his
new vehicle).
� It is therefore confirmed that the subject of safety equipment does not play a major role in the
negotiations at the time the choice is made. This opinion is moreover expressed both by
motorists and by salesmen:
� Motorists say that salesmen point out that certain items of equipment are fitted, rather than
explaining the benefit of these, and tend to concentrate more on accessories designed to
heighten comfort during their sales pitch.
“Car dealers tend to focus on air-conditioner, interior level of finishing, design,
performances… rather than safety, commonly they underline that ABS is included in the price
of the car, no extra charge” (Car owners. Low-medium range, Italy)
� Salesmen often feel that customers are not really interested in the subject or are only interested
in a very superficial way – to ensure that some of the items of equipment are indeed fitted –
without this really influencing their decision. Above all, they stress that motorists are not
prepared to pay extra for this equipment.
There are apparently only a few exceptions linked to very specific types of motorist who have
safety as one of their uppermost concerns (family customers, especially women).
Users’ attitudes towards electronic active safety systems in vehicles – May 2006 29

Qualitative Study
� Aside from the inevitable ABS, possession of the other electronic safety systems varies markedly
from country to country and between the two segments. They are mainly cited by the owners of
models in the mid to high range:
� Frequently: • ESP (the most frequent), or ASR or similar systems (in
particular in Germany)
• GPS, when it is considered as a positive contribution to
safety
� Marginally in each country (only a
few people per country):
• Assisted parking or anti-collision radars
• Alarms denoting speeding or speed adjusters
• Adaptive headlights
� Here, too, we see motorists tending to refuse to consider safety in terms of specific items of
equipment, but rather to think of the safety of their vehicle as a whole.
“I think that’s the first time I’ve thought about the safety systems in my car” (Car owners – Lowmedium
range, United Kingdom)
� Professional users all have vehicles equipped with ABS and often ESP or ASR. They are
generally well informed about the way these systems work (in Germany, the fleet managers had
received targeted information on these systems from manufacturers, on the occasion of trade fairs
or commercial relations).
Some lorries are also fitted with additional systems, which contribute to safety, for example the
de-icing system, line-crossing sensors, assisted or reinforced braking systems, and the emergency
call system.
Professionals often make it a point of honour to assert that these systems are a plus, but that the
drivers’ driving qualities remain decisive for safety and that they could do without them.
For some, the concern for safety can be the reason for choosing a particular make (Mercedes),
which removes the obligation of checking the equipment in detail.
“To be honest I’m not sure what’s on the Mercedes vans, I just assumed they’re good vans,
probably got ABS. It’s not something I’ve looked into really” (Fleet managers, United Kingdom)
� Driving instructors express two opinions here:
� They think that their pupils are often poorly informed of safety systems and that this is
certainly not a priority element in the choice of their car.
Moreover, pupils are often young people whose first car will be bought second hand after they
have obtained their licence – without any real possibility of choice.
� Some feel that the sophistication of modern equipment is such that the average motorist does
not understand it and – more seriously – does not know how to use it properly (for example
ABS which requires a certain braking “technique” in order to be wholly effective).
Users’ attitudes towards electronic active safety systems in vehicles – May 2006 30

Qualitative Study
� For the future, there is healthy unanimity in all the countries (with the exception of the United
Kingdom and Poland, which are still overall more reluctant 1 ) and in all the target groups in
thinking that the importance of safety systems will grow.
However, one should not misunderstand the meaning of this assertion:
� It means that motorists expect these systems to be improved and to become more generalised,
and not to be reserved for high-range models.
� It does not mean that they will be prepared to buy these items of equipment as optional
extras.
� The right to safety demanded by motorists of all countries will be recalled here. In this respect,
they think that any item of equipment contributing decisively to safety and useful for all motorists
should be fitted as standard in all vehicles, or become a legal obligation along the same lines as
seat belts.
This is no doubt both an argument of a moral order and a means of “kicking the matter into touch”
whilst waiting for these systems to become standard and without envisaging taking the initiative
oneself.
These notions of real effectiveness and general usefulness are entirely decisive and will play a
decisive part in the evaluation of the various safety systems.
� Motorists think that the trend towards democratisation of equipment will be favoured by the strong
competition prevailing in the car market.
“When I get my new car in 5-10-15 years, it will be a criterion, they will all be fitted because the
Japanese have already started in that line” (Car owners – Low-medium range, France)
“In the future it will be fitted on all vehicles. That was the same with the airbags and the ESP, it
is already optional on little cars, tomorrow it will be standard” (Car owners – Low-medium
range, Germany)
In Poland, where motorists seem more reluctant about these items of equipment, we see that it is
rather a change in their status that could increase their appeal. They would have to become signs
of standing, for example.
� Professional drivers and fleet managers declare their willingness always to keep up with the
latest developments where safety is concerned – albeit again commenting that other factors than
equipment play their part here (in particular the regular servicing of the vehicles).
� Salesmen think that these systems could become more important, whilst remarking that the
increase in their number and their degree of sophistication tend to surpass the customers’ capacity
of understanding. Some think that financial incentive systems should be established to increase the
attractiveness of these accessories.
� Many driving instructors reiterate their reservations, although they think that these items of
equipment will grow.
1 In the United Kingdom, it is because the more emotive dimensions in the choice of a car apparently have to remain the priority ones. In
Poland, it is more a problem of the costs of this equipment and mistrust as regards the reliability of electronics.
Users’ attitudes towards electronic active safety systems in vehicles – May 2006 31

Qualitative Study
CHAPTER V:
ATTITUDES TOWARDS DIFFERENT
ELECTRONIC ON-BOARD
CAR SAFETY SYSTEMS
Users’ attitudes towards electronic active safety systems in vehicles – May 2006 32

Qualitative Study
� The people questioned were asked to express their opinion on 10 car safety systems “already
existing or which should be developed shortly”, with a brief description given of each one’s
function.
A- ABS – Anti-blocking system
A system that electronically adjusts braking intensity so that the wheels continue to turn, enabling
the driver to keep steering control.
� We have already said how much this equipment is now well established in people’s minds. It is
the piece of equipment that most people have and the one which is most envisaged for the future
when motorists do not yet have it.
� The system and the way it works are widely known in all the countries.
� ABS is the typical example of a safety system which is supposed to be effective and useful for
almost all motorists, everyone possibly having the need to brake suddenly with a major risk of
wheel blocking and loss of control of the vehicle. ABS has become a new standard in brake
operation. It is already fitted as standard on many vehicles at all levels of the range. For
professional users, it is as much a part of the basic equipment if not more so.
� However, it will be noted here, in reporting the comments made by some driving instructors, that
ABS can give a deceptive feeling of safety and that people sometimes misunderstand its benefit
(shortening of the braking distance), which clearly illustrates the complexity of the understanding
of these systems – and their good management – by drivers. In this respect, ABS could prompt
carelessness. Some motorists make comments of this kind.
“This safety measure could be dangerous. Anyone can be under the illusion that he can stick to
the car in front. This could have perverted effects” (Car owners – Low-medium range, France)
� Salesmen comment that this equipment is currently considered as standard to such a degree that it
is not its presence that constitutes an advantage but its absence that would be damning in the
sales argument.
B- ESP – Electronic Stability Program
A system that helps to stabilise the vehicle and prevent skidding when cornering or driving off,
through active brake intervention on one or several wheels and intelligent torque management
� After ABS, ESP constitutes the safety system of which most people are aware, although this
varies from one country to another, the names may differ according to the manufacturers, and
the understanding of the principle of how it works is often uncertain. In any case those who
are familiar with it know what its benefit is: ensuring the vehicle’s stability in critical situations.
It is in Germany that this item of equipment is most widely known (the ADAC is arguing for it to
be fitted as standard on all vehicles there) – then in Italy. Familiarity with it is less generalised
among French, Finnish and Polish motorists (it is mainly owners of mid- to high-range vehicles
who have heard of it) and less still among their British counterparts. Among professional drivers
and fleet managers, familiarity with this system is greater and more homogenous.
Users’ attitudes towards electronic active safety systems in vehicles – May 2006 33

Qualitative Study
� Interest in ESP is shown to a considerable degree among motorists even if the desire for its
fitting to be generalised to all vehicles is expressed more unequally: very strongly in Germany
and Italy, with less enthusiasm in France, Finland and Poland (fear among owners of low- to
medium range vehicles in this latter country of there being too great an impact on the price, and
undoubtedly also specific mistrust already indicated as regards the reliability of electronic
equipment). In the United Kingdom, the vagueness of perceptions of the principle of the system
means that infatuation is currently more limited.
� When respondents define the significance of ESP, it is to associate it preferentially with extreme
driving situations, linked either to the conditions found on the road (likely to concern intensive
drivers to a greater degree, and less so those whose driving is essentially in urban or suburban
areas), or the style of driving (fast, sporty).
“If you don’t make any excess, you don’t really need it” (Car owners – Medium-high range,
France)
Some people even imagine pernicious effects.
“Maybe it will be an incentive for people to act even more like morons” (Car owners – Mediumhigh
range, France)
� Potential opinion formers, who are generally favourably disposed, themselves sometimes voice
this kind of reservation – including in Germany, moreover, where their views do not go as far as
the very positive attitudes of customers: the system is effective but can lead to a dangerous overestimation
of one’s abilities.
“The ESP does not allow you to take a bend at 100 as some people believe” (Car salesmen,
Germany)
� Professional users show themselves to be generally very favourable – even if occasionally we
hear concerns of the same kind about the deceptive feeling of safety that this system can give (a
comment made by some fleet managers), and if some lorry drivers claim that trailers not being
fitted with it constitutes a limit to its effectiveness.
C- Adaptive headlights
A system that controls headlights to ensure optimum illumination of the road in bends. The system
directs headlights into the bend. It can also automatically provide reduction of the glare to
upcoming vehicles.
� This equipment is subject to a very diverse appraisal according to the country and the categories
of user:
� The importance of the system is seen first of all in the increased visibility it gives on winding
roads.
� A particularly positive attitude towards it is shown in France, where it is associated with the
make Citroen (historic – DS – and more recent models): owners of cars in the medium to high
range who are intensive drivers state their interest in it.
Users’ attitudes towards electronic active safety systems in vehicles – May 2006 34

Qualitative Study
� There is a relative lack of interest in it in Germany, where it appears reserved solely for
motorists who drive a lot on A roads and in rural areas (rather than motorways). Likewise, in
Finland and the United Kingdom, interest in it seems reserved exclusively for driving outside
built-up areas and we see that motorists have difficulty grasping its benefit. In Italy and
Poland, owners of medium- to high-range cars or intensive drivers show a degree of interest.
� Overall, we see that the anti-dazzle effect of this equipment is over-valued in relation to the
illumination effect for which xenon headlights (which some associate it with, in France in
particular) seem more effective.
� Finally, it is a system which, whilst not generating a categorical rejection, does not manage to
attract any great enthusiasm among drivers as to the idea of having it fitted (with the exception of
France). It seems reserved for motorists driving at night on small, winding roads in rural
areas.
� Interest is barely more marked among professional drivers. It is always conditioned by driving on
winding country roads.
� For these reasons, adaptive headlights are the typical example of equipment which buyers are for
the most part not prepared to pay for.
� Potential opinion formers also show themselves to have a lukewarm interest in the subject.
D- Speed alert
A system that alerts the driver when the speed exceeds the limit set by the driver or the legal fixed
speed limit on any road section
� This equipment is widely rejected in all categories of interviewees and in all countries.
� The reasons are wide ranging. First of all, the interviewees perceive it less as a safety system and
more as a guarantee against committing an offence.
Secondly, the information offered already seems available – since it is displayed on the
speedometer or on the speed regulator, which has the added advantage of maintaining the speed
constant.
� This system raises questions as to the principle of its operation, which is also to some degree
called into question:
� Who or what controls the speed?
• If it is the driver himself, it is very restricting, since the speed limit often changes, both in
urban areas and on main roads and motorways.
• If it is an external signal, this can be interesting since it is easy not to see that the speed
limit has changed – but that calls for an infrastructure which seems not to have been
installed yet.
� How does the system manifest itself?
Users’ attitudes towards electronic active safety systems in vehicles – May 2006 35

Qualitative Study
• Bearing in mind the frequent changes, this system revives in particular the spectre of the
car that “beeps” all the time.
� Does the system also brake the car?
For some, this would be the only interest (in Germany, some also talk of a Mercedes system
going in this direction). For most, it is an apocalyptic vision and it is reckoned that this would
create more accidents than it would prevent.
� Finally, most users – private individuals and professionals – do not see any point in having this
equipment, which they would hasten to disconnect (something which the few motorists or
professional drivers who claim they are equipped with the system say they do).
“I had it. The problem is that since it keeps ringing as long as you are above the speed limit you
disconnect it” (Professional drivers, France)
“It’s just not necessary and that’s potentially irritating. I would just disconnect it straight away.
It would be like having the wife sat next to me pointing out I’m going too fast!” (Professional
drivers, United Kingdom)
� Finally – and this is the major obstacle –, this item of equipment is considered as having an
intolerable influence on the motorist’s free will. It seems pointlessly moralising and guiltinducing.
This aspect is disparaged in particular in Poland.
“I happen to drive faster than the speed limit now and again. I would feel guilty most of the time”
(Professional drivers, Germany)
“I hate that idea. It’s so controlling. Next thing will be something that actually slows your car
down when you’re driving too fast. I find the whole idea too constraining” (Car owners –
Medium-high range, United Kingdom)
“Personally, I can’t stand them. I’d be surprised if this innovation survives in this country. It’s a
bit Nanny State, telling you off all the time because you’ve gone too fast. If you’re a good driver
you know what speed you’re doing and I like to be in control of that, thank you very much” (Fleet
managers, United Kingdom)
“No, no, thank you” (Car owners – Low-medium range, Poland)
� The same scepticism can be noted among many of the potential opinion formers.
E- Driver condition motoring
A system that monitors the condition of the driver and warns against drowsiness, distraction and
inattention
� This system – little known, except by some professionals and some Finnish motorists – intrigues
people as to the way it works, which also raises question marks as to its reliability.
� Its usefulness is immediately seen by motorists regularly undertaking long journeys at night,
bearing in mind the potential danger of falling asleep at the wheel. In this respect, this system is
felt to be very important for improved road safety. However, not everyone is entirely convinced by
the idea:
Users’ attitudes towards electronic active safety systems in vehicles – May 2006 36

Qualitative Study
� There is near unanimity among motorists in considering that this equipment should be fitted
on lorries and coaches and should be a legal obligation, but motorists are more reluctant for
themselves.
� A number of them feel that it is the driver’s responsibility to desist from driving if he is tired,
or to force himself to take breaks – so this system would be superfluous.
“It’s up to the driver to decide for himself to stop driving if he feels that he is falling asleep”
(Professional drivers, France)
� Others are of the view that this system stifles the driver’s freedom and reject it on this account.
This reaction is particularly marked in the United Kingdom and Poland, and is generally found
among people who do not have occasion to drive regularly at night and more so among lowto
medium-range motorists.
In addition to the pointlessness of the system, they tend to rationalise their rejection by voicing
doubts as to its reliability.
� Some motorists, on the other hand, claim to be very interested in this item of equipment:
• Because they drive a lot and also drive at night.
• Because they are aware that suddenly falling asleep (which has a name in Germany:
“Sekundenschlaf”) can even happen to a responsible driver, which makes them consider
this accessory not as a curb on their free will but as an aid in avoiding an incident
beyond their control.
� Reactions to this system are not very different among professional drivers. Overall, drivers and
fleet managers are in favour of it in all the countries, even if they owe it to their image of
responsible lorry drivers to say that they observe the legal breaks and are not really threatened, but
they always imagine that other drivers do not have their scruples.
“It’s important, especially because a lot of drivers disregard their physiological needs and a lot of
customers-tourist agencies try to force the drivers to drive non stop” (Fleet managers, Poland)
Taxi drivers are generally less interested since they do not do much long-distance driving at night.
� Potential opinion formers show themselves to have mixed views, the nature of their reactions not
differing from that of users. In any case, there are few who see it as being useful in a general and
preferential manner.
F- Lane departure warning
A system that gives a warning to the driver in order to avoid leaving the lane unintentionally, using
such technologies as video image processing
� Some people know about this system in France, where it is associated with the make Citroen, but
the device is practically unknown in the other countries.
� This is the characteristic example of a conflicting item of equipment and one that does not
arouse any great desire among drivers to have it fitted in their car, irrespective of the country
and the type of user:
Users’ attitudes towards electronic active safety systems in vehicles – May 2006 37

Qualitative Study
� Its usefulness is questioned in a normal driving situation and people wonder what it really
contributes, to the extent that one is often obliged to change lane (in town for example).
Questions are asked about the triggering factor: is this overtaking without indicating? In that
case, it would be an unseemly intervention in the driver’s free will:
“I cross the line when and if I feel like it” (Car owners – Medium-high range, France)
“That’s part of the Highway Code. It goes too far in supporting people, they start feeling less
responsible for themselves” (Fleet managers, France)
“At that rate, with all these safety devices we won’t be able to make any decision ourselves
any more” (Car owners – Medium-high range, Germany)
� If it is a question of drawing attention to the driver crossing the line, the systems of “spikes”
used on certain roads or in areas where works are being carried out seem to do the same job at
a lower cost (mentioned spontaneously in France, the United Kingdom and Poland).
“This type of systems starts to be introduced in Poland, they are made this way, that a line on
the road is painted with a special kind of paint, which permits to hear a loud noise, when the
car is driving on this line. I would say that it makes sense, especially according to the last
device. (…) this is a shot of adrenaline that you start losing control and it gives you a sign that
you should rest” (Fleet managers, Poland)
� This system tends to be considered as the archetypal sound signal: repetitive, annoying and
pointless (because you no longer pay heed to it or you disconnect it), which could even be
dangerous.
“For me it doesn’t make sense. I prefer when it doesn’t beep. I don’t want it because it beeps all
the time in my car, that seatbelts are undone and it irritates” (Car owners. Low-medium range,
Poland)
In France, where the system is better known, there are even negative opinions as to its operation,
with reference to the specific experience of vehicles in which it is fitted:
“It vibrates under the driver’s seat when you cross a line. People complain because of the
vibrations going too fast and they are disturbing when you overtake” (Professional drivers,
France)
� However, and this is interesting, in comparison with the processes coming into play in the
mechanisms of appeal and rejection, this system can gain in appeal when it is perceived as an
alarm alerting the driver to a reduction in his level of concentration, with a benefit comparable to
the equipment dealt with above. In this case, it is therefore considered as a sub-system for the
monitoring of the driver’s state of alertness – in a less effective version and at the same time
reserved for lorry and coach drivers.
� The attitudes of professional users scarcely differ. Those of potential opinion formers are
generally (at least) lukewarm – some salesmen seeing them as a possible sales argument.
Users’ attitudes towards electronic active safety systems in vehicles – May 2006 38

Qualitative Study
G- Obstacle and collision warning
A system which detects obstacles, including other vehicles, and gives warnings when collision is
imminent based on such technologies as radar and video image processing
� This system gives rise to numerous conjectures as to the exact way it works, the type of
obstacles concerned, and the moment the device is triggered.
� For many it is assimilated to reversing radar – equipment which is quite widely known and
generally viewed in positive terms – but a sense more strongly concentrated on the avoidance of a
collision is more problematic:
� At what distance does it trigger? Is there still time to avoid the accident? (The term “imminent
collision” used in the definition could lead one to suppose that it would be too late).
� Does that refer to observance of the safety distance? What of it, then, when other motorists
come rushing up?
� Does it brake the car (it seems that Mercedes is currently experimenting with a system of this
kind)? If that is the case, what becomes of free will and the danger caused to or by other users
(risk of crashing into the vehicle by sharply braking)?
� Isn’t there a risk of repeated alarms (every time an object or a car approaches the vehicle)?
� What is the real benefit in relation to what the motorist sees?
� Interest in this system seems basically concentrated on obstacles that cannot be seen (more so to
the rear, small obstacles – a block or a child behind the vehicle), which again makes it comparable
to the reversing radar.
Beyond this, a certain interest in principle is displayed among motorists who imagine
themselves in situations in which it is impossible for them to see or make out obstacles that can
appear in front of them: a traffic jam after a bend, a pedestrian or an animal unexpectedly crossing
the road, in particular at night or in fog.
However, it is rarely reflected in an active desire to have such a device fitted, since this is often
perceived as undoubtedly potentially useful but not essential, and could moreover appear too
“futuristic”.
The attitudes of professional users are quite similar.
This equipment again fuels general reservations that can be entertained in respect of these systems.
“We’re entering the realms of too many gadgets now. What worries me is that having all these
devices means the driver loses responsibility, and that may not be right. It’s actually making
driving more dangerous in my view” (Car owners – Medium-high range, United Kingdom)
� As for the potential opinion formers, some car salesmen show a degree of interest, whilst driving
instructors seem for the most part half-hearted or sceptical. As among private or professional
customers, the uncertainties prevailing over the operating principle and the way in which the
system is triggered make the adoption of clear positions on the matter difficult.
Users’ attitudes towards electronic active safety systems in vehicles – May 2006 39

Qualitative Study
H- Local danger warning
A system that detects a wide range of hazards and gives real time information on such hazards as
bad weather conditions, oncoming vehicles, accidents and pile-ups ahead
I- RTTI – Real time Travel and Traffic Information
A system giving real time information to the driver on traffic congestion and weather conditions, for
preparing to cope with the situation ahead or choosing an alternative more effective route
� We will look at these two devices together, since they were spontaneously associated by most of
the interviewees – the short definitions proposed barely enabling any distinction to be made
between them.
� They are the subject of a certain misunderstanding:
� They are not perceived as new items of equipment but as new GPS functions. In this respect,
they are known on mature markets in terms of equipment (Germany and Finland in particular).
� GPS is currently a leading item of equipment which many drivers, essentially among intensive
drivers and owners of medium-high range models, are keen to have. The interest in GPS stems
from the fact that it offers both comfort (stress-free driving since the worry about orientation is
removed) and safety (you no longer have to check your route by consulting maps to the
detriment of your concentration). Its appeal therefore refers to these systems.
“Before, when I used to drive with the map on the steering wheel, without watching the
road…” (Car owners – Medium-high range, France)
� Conversely, if they were proposed on their own, they would appear to do the same job as
GPS (for some, this kind of service can also be provided by mobile phone operators), and
would therefore risk being superfluous.
� In the sense of a new-generation navigation system, this equipment – with ancillary functions
associated to those of the next one – seems very attractive for all intensive drivers who have to
travel in areas they do not know, including professional drivers. On the other hand, it seems
pointless for people who use the car in urban areas which they know, and there are many such
people among the owners of low- to medium-range vehicles.
� In Finland, in particular, remarks are heard that this system calls for an exterior infrastructure
which does not yet exist (although one participant had a car equipped with a navigation system
providing these functions).
� The usefulness of this system would be heavily dependent on the quality of the information
provided. Indeed, the radio gives information on the traffic situation but it is not in real time. The
possibility of obtaining a diversion route often appears to be the system’s main benefit. These
two characteristics – perfectly up-to-date information and proposals for diversions – are absolutely
imperative in justifying the usefulness of this system.
Users’ attitudes towards electronic active safety systems in vehicles – May 2006 40

Qualitative Study
� No major differences were seen between the reactions of the motorists who met in the groups and
those of the professional users of vehicles. The understanding of the benefits of the system is
overall the same. Undoubtedly the specific interest appears more developed among lorry drivers
who travel long distances on main roads or motorways, and among their fleet managers. The main
advantage for them is also the possibility of anticipating tailbacks or traffic problems by being
able to take an alternative route fairly early on, and avoid wasting time (this having an economic
impact for them, moreover). Reservations relate to the assumed high cost of these future systems,
or the current absence of infrastructures (a fact underlined in particular by some Finns who
sometimes mention areas that are equipped in other European countries, including Germany).
� Among the potential opinion formers, car salesmen often see it as a particularly useful system –
but they also view it as a device based on GPS or coupled to it, giving it an added sophistication.
The driving instructors’ reactions are less homogenous (and less involved).
J- E-call
A system that automatically gives precise coordinates of the location of an accident to the
emergency services
� After a brief reflection – some people sometimes felt that this equipment was doing the same job
as the mobile phone – all the interviewees in all the countries agreed that this equipment was
indispensable, since it was obviously a device that could save lives.
“We all have a mobile phone, but what use is it when you are wounded and can’t use it” (Car
owners – Medium-high range, Germany)
� Interest in this system even had one thinking that it would be liable to become a “must”, along the
lines of the airbag, as an emergency services system that it is reassuring to have, even if you hope
you will never have to use it.
“It’s one of those things that you don't particularly want to use but it’s nice to know it’s there!”
(Car salesmen- United Kingdom)
� We can see that apart from the United Kingdom, where this problem was raised by one person,
and Poland where it was mentioned by a few others, this equipment was never perceived as a
stifling of the driver’s freedom:
It will be recalled here that these two countries seem particularly attached to the inviolability of
individual freedom, the United Kingdom by cultural attachment, Poland for having been more
recently liberated from the constraints of a totalitarian state.
“I don’t like the idea of being tracked at all times. Who will be tracking me too? It’s all a bit Big
Brother for my liking” (Professional drivers, United Kingdom)
That does not mean that the question of the compatibility of such a system with the protection of
personal data is not liable one day to public debate if campaigns were developed in this direction
by opponents – but at least this is barely present in people’s minds at the moment. We can think
that the benefit, which is perceived as very real, will weigh more heavily in the balance in the face
of any opposition.
Users’ attitudes towards electronic active safety systems in vehicles – May 2006 41

Qualitative Study
K- Assessment of the interest shown in the different systems
� Aside from a few differences existing between the various countries and between the types of
users, we can draw a few conclusions from the analysis of the reactions to these systems which are
valid for all and symptomatic of the deep-seated and genuine attitudes to them:
� Some safety systems are amply consensual, i.e. their usefulness is unanimously recognised
and they are poised to become safety standards.
In this respect, motorists feel that they are of interest to all kinds of motorist and that they
should be fitted as standard features on all vehicles, or even their fitting should be made
legally compulsory. This basically concerns ABS and ESP (support for ESP is not so
massive, but quite clearly this item of equipment is probably destined to be the subject of the
same infatuation as ABS in a relatively short time frame).
Interestingly, the electronic emergency alarm, the principle of which is still not very well
known, seems destined to come into favour in an identical fashion.
� Other systems seem to constitute a contribution to vehicle safety, it is true, but do not seem
to address all types of motorist in the same way, since they relate to specific driving
conditions (in particular night driving).
In this case, motorists regard it as pointless to have all vehicles fitted with such systems and
are of the view that it is preferable to leave these as optional extras, at the free choice of those
who feel they are concerned. This demand refers to reluctance in the face of the increasingly
large number of on-board electronic systems that are supposed both to increase the price of
the car and imply risks of malfunctioning, sources of inconvenience and costs.
The discriminating criteria here are often the mileage clocked up and the range level linked to
it – drivers in the medium to high range, who are often intensive drivers using motorways,
being more favourable to them than those of the low to medium range who tend more to be
average drivers using their car in urban and suburban areas.
“I don’t think my journeys to and from work and to the shops really require a car equipped
with thousands of pounds worth of safety features. It seems somewhat ridiculous” (Car owners
– Low-medium range, United Kingdom)
In this second category we find the systems for monitoring of the driver’s state of alertness
(which drivers consider as very important for professional drivers and especially for coach
drivers), alarms warning of hazards in the area through which the driver is driving, the
real-time information and navigation system, and adaptive headlights. The alarm system
alerting of risks of collision is still perceived more ambiguously.
� Finally, other systems seem to be of debatable interest, or are rejected quite categorically.
The typical example of this is the system preventing the driver from crossing the white
line, which only seems to be of any use if it is regarded as a guard against loss of
concentration, and the alarm indicating that the driver has exceeded the speed limit.
� Apart from the costs and any reliability problems mentioned above, we also find the reasons
for rejection of these items of equipment to include fear of a removal of responsibility
which is potentially dangerous for motorists and a curb on one’s free will:
Users’ attitudes towards electronic active safety systems in vehicles – May 2006 42

Qualitative Study
“I think ABS and EPS are clearly important because they account for driving in poor weather
conditions which is something you can’t really control. What worries me is relying on a lots of
bleeps and buzzers to tell me I’m driving too fast, that I should wake up and that I’m crossing
the white line. As a responsible driver I should be aware of all of these things, and I don’t
want that responsibility taken away from me. Its actively dangerous” (Car owners – Mediumhigh
range, United Kingdom)
Users’ attitudes towards electronic active safety systems in vehicles – May 2006 43

Qualitative Study
CHAPTER VI:
SOURCES OF INFORMATION
AND PURCHASE STIMULI
Users’ attitudes towards electronic active safety systems in vehicles – May 2006 44

Qualitative Study
VI.1 SOURCES OF INFORMATION DEEMED TO BE USEFUL AND CREDIBLE
� Irrespective of the country considered, there are several channels of information that are
particularly valued by motorists for issues relating to the car in general and safety in particular:
� The specialist media (automobile press, television programmes).
� The Internet (including car manufacturer’s websites).
� Word of mouth, exchanges of experience with friends, parents and colleagues. It can be
thought that word of mouth is an absolutely fundamental support for the formation of opinions
on this or that system.
In the same way, professional drivers almost unanimously mention the media first and foremost
– in particular the specialist press and the Internet. Word of mouth also plays a role, essentially
between colleagues (taxi drivers and deliverymen).
� The other sources of information suggested to the participants differ from each other
considerably in terms of competence and credibility:
� The public bodies seem liable to take part in the debate either via regulatory provisions, or
through information and awareness-raising campaigns, for which they have the necessary
resources. But it would appear that their action has to remain at this general level (of the order
of the anti-speeding campaigns in France and drink-driving campaigns in Italy).
The action taken by the public authorities is also decisive for the maintenance of the roads
network which was, it should be recalled, one of the factors for improved car safety mentioned
most spontaneously in all the countries.
Finally, the public authorities are expected to set in place and ensure observance of the
legislation aimed at increasing safety (speed limit, respecting the distance from the vehicle in
front, etc.).
Polish and Italian motorists reveal themselves to be highly sceptical of the action taken by the
public authorities, towards whom they seem to harbour an endemic mistrust.
This view of the possible action of the public authorities is common to motorists and any
driving professionals (drivers and opinion formers).
� Car manufacturers are considered as a competent and credible source but obviously
limited to the systems they offer on their own vehicles. Moreover, they are not necessarily the
inventors of these systems. In Germany, for this reason more credit was given to the
information provided by a company like Bosch, which is a specialist in these systems.
In this respect, car shows – mentioned in several countries – obviously constitute an
opportunity to obtain information on the various systems.
The credibility of manufacturers is high among all the target groups – motorists and
professionals alike.
For salesmen, the manufacturers obviously constitute the preferential source of information.
Fleet managers have an especially close relationship – which may be via marketing men or
salesmen – with their manufacturer(s), from whom they sometimes receive targeted
information.
� Car salesmen
Users’ attitudes towards electronic active safety systems in vehicles – May 2006 45

Qualitative Study
Regardless of the country, car salesmen are considered as one of the least reliable sources of
information on the subject by all buyers, irrespective of the target group:
• They are not always well informed (even on the systems of their own make), something
that the study confirmed in a number of points.
• They want to sell and therefore only use the arguments that they think can be of use to
them: safety equipment does not seem to them to be a priority matter in this respect.
“The car salesmen don’t explain how those safety systems work, they are only there to sell.
A salesman will always play a nice tune” (Professional drivers, France)
• They only know the systems offered by “their” manufacturer and therefore cannot be
totally objective.
In the best of cases, customers feel that they will endeavour to “check” the information given
by the salesman (by looking on the Internet).
Only car salesmen themselves regard themselves as an important source of information. They
think they can influence buyers by means of well-argued information, but acknowledge that
their customers do not consider them to be totally impartial.
� Automobile clubs
With the exception of Germany, where the ADAC is a veritable institution and the motorists’
lobbyist, automobile clubs do not seem to be predestined to provide effective information on
safety systems. Virtually unknown in some countries (Poland), and reputed to be elitist in
others (France), they seem to have too small an audience to be able to aspire to a major
influence. In Italy, doubts are even voiced as to their independence.
This opinion runs across all the target groups.
� Consumers’ associations
These bodies generally enjoy a very good image in terms of credibility and are not suspected
of bias. On the other hand, when it comes to systems involving sophisticated technologies,
their competence can be doubted. This was the case in Germany (despite the excellent
reputation of “Stiftung Warentest”). In other countries (Italy), their audience seems too small
to be genuinely effective. In Poland – where, as has been said, a degree of suspicion prevails
as regards governmental sources – they are considered as one of the most reliable sources
since they genuinely act in the interest of consumers.
� Driving schools
Opinions on the possible function of driving schools in information on safety systems are very
controversial in all the countries:
• On the one hand it is felt that this information is part and parcel of their duty to educate
people about safety and it is felt that they are well enough informed on the benefits – and
limits – of these items of equipment.
• On the other hand, they are specialists in driving, not technology, and there are doubts as
to whether their information is impartial or biased (for example limited to items of
equipment of the makes of vehicle they use for their driving lessons).
Users’ attitudes towards electronic active safety systems in vehicles – May 2006 46

Qualitative Study
• Finally, it is felt that their “customers” are not exactly a target group of buyers of new
vehicles, and that therefore they only reach a very small proportion of potential buyers of
safety equipment accessories.
It will be recalled here that driving instructors are often very reluctant as to the usefulness
of safety equipment since they regard it as taking responsibility away from the driver. In their
eyes, the first safety factor is the driver’s behaviour. This opinion is obviously a way of
enhancing the value of their function and their status.
� Insurance companies
Motorists are often initially surprised at the idea that insurance companies can provide
information on safety equipment. This mainly stems from the very poor image of the
profession in all the countries: people do not imagine them to be at the service of the motorist,
they tend more to have an image of “exploiters”. In Italy, there is even talk of the “insurance
mafia”. This image is shared by the target groups of professionals.
On reflection, however, it is reckoned that they should have a preferential interest in reducing
the number of accidents and that they perhaps have statistics liable to confirm the importance
of certain types of equipment, which backs their credibility.
Finally, it is not as a source of information that they are judged to be interesting, but rather
because, through premium reductions, they have a very effective instrument for
encouraging motorists to have certain systems fitted. On this point, there is unanimity
among the various target groups.
Users’ attitudes towards electronic active safety systems in vehicles – May 2006 47

Qualitative Study
VI.2 POTENTIAL PURCHASE STIMULI
� It seems clear that a financial advantage offered to motorists equipping their cars with certain
safety systems is liable to facilitate their adoption, in all countries and in the opinion of all the
target groups.
� However, it will be noted that it is difficult to deal with this subject in the absolute without
specifying the type of equipment and without indications of the sum at stake – bearing in mind the
considerable differences in the degree to which people want the various systems and the
disparities in tax systems and insurance practices.
� Overall, it will be recalled that motorists’ latent desire is not to have to pay for these accessories as
an extra. In other words, that the effect of the incentive will be all the greater the more this takes
the investment nearer zero.
A- 10% reduction in the insurance premium
This idea had been put forward spontaneously and is considered as a possible incentive for
purchase, all the more so since a premium proposed by an insurance company is liable to lend
credibility to the usefulness of the equipment in question.
Here again, it is difficult to decide overall on the importance of this measure. On the negative
side, it must be recalled that some motorists – more so those with a long driving career behind
them and thus often those with medium- to high-range models –, often have premiums
alleviated by the bonus system, which risks minimising the impact of another reduction.
Professional users agree in adopting a generally positive view of the effect of a bonus on
insurance premiums but express the same reservations as motorists as regards the real impact
of a 10% bonus. This option could be more interesting for the categories paying a high
insurance premium (for example taxi drivers).
To judge the significance of this measure, one wonders whether this reduction would only
apply in the year of purchase (which would reduce its relevance) or would be valid for the
entire life of the vehicle.
B- A promotional offer from the dealer offering one of these systems free of charge instead
of another optional extra offered
This example illustrates in a characteristic manner the problem of motorists’ attitudes towards
electronic safety systems. This idea arouses considerable reservations in all the countries and
no judgement can be passed on its importance in absolute terms, i.e. without knowing the item
of equipment in question and the optional extras which would have to be given up:
• The hindrance is first and foremost of a psychological nature: the idea of giving
something up is not viewed favourably by motorists in any of the countries studied. It
goes against motorists’ desire for a maximum performance of their car for a given budget.
“This option is good as long as you don’t have to give anything up. Safety should be given
‘in addition to’, not ‘instead of’” (Driving school teachers, Poland)
“The left hand takes back what the right one gave” (Car owners – Low-medium range,
France)
Users’ attitudes towards electronic active safety systems in vehicles – May 2006 48

Qualitative Study
• More fundamentally, it does appear here that motorists are not prepared to give up an
optional extra linked to comfort (such as those mentioned, CD player and above all air
conditioning, which determine the quality of on-board life when the vehicle is being used
on a daily basis and often convey something of an image of standing), in exchange for a
safety option the use of which is hypothetical. The motorist here has the impression that
this is a fool’s bargain:
“Instead of getting something basic you are going to get something which you might very
well never use, I don’t agree with that” (Car owners – Medium-high range, France)
The reservations in respect of this measure are the same among the target groups of
professionals and possible opinion formers. They are particularly strong among salesmen
who think even less of its effects than the other categories of interviewees and do not see
the interest that a manufacturer would have in giving sophisticated equipment which is
thus expensive in terms of development costs.
“I can’t see it, I can’t see people giving up the things they really love – the air con, the
climate control, the six speaker CD – for something they may never, hopefully, use” (Car
salesmen, Italy)
“It’s a nonsense, but this is how many Italians are: if they have to choose between an MP
3 or additional safety equipment, they go for the CD or the MP3” (Car salesmen, Italy)
Rather than substitution for another item of equipment, it was recommended here that
safety systems be offered as a “pack” with other types of equipment, emphasising the
saving made on the purchase of these options individually, which makes the extra costs
easier to accept.
C- A tax incentive or a reduction in the registration tax representing 30% of the costs of the
system
Here again, the real interest in this measure should be considered in relation to the amount of
the saving made bearing in mind the investment needed.
Nonetheless, such a tax exemption measure is considered as a traditional incentive and one
serving to accelerate the adoption of certain types of equipment (indeed historically the case of
the catalytic converter). However, the impact of this measure would have to be checked:
70% of the investment still to be borne by the motorist could seem a large proportion.
In Italy, Finland and the United Kingdom, this proposal is met with considerable reservation,
whilst it is greeted more favourably in France and Germany. These differences may reflect the
differences in the amount of the tax system.
In all cases, the interviewees give preference to a tax incentive spread over several years to a
single reduction on the registration tax.
The reaction of professional customers to this proposal is identical to that of motorists and
likewise that of possible opinion formers. There is support in principle for tax relief, but its
effect must be sufficiently consistent to be really effective.
� In conclusion, it can be said that financial incentives do, in the opinion of all the target groups,
constitute a key factor liable to favour the purchase of the most valued equipment, but that the
type of incentive needs to be defined accurately bearing in mind the duties and tax rates pertaining
to cars in these different countries.
In all cases, it appears here clearly that:
• The safety system will be selected on its perceived usefulness in response to an essential
need.
Users’ attitudes towards electronic active safety systems in vehicles – May 2006 49

Qualitative Study
• The customer is looking for minimum investment.
The importance of the effect of image-related factors in the appeal of safety equipment will
again be recalled. So it is that in Poland it is emphasised that it would be possible to increase
this appeal appreciably the moment these items of equipment were typified as being of
“standing”. One might think that this mechanism would also work on other markets. It is this
that in part explains the interest in accessories interpreted as being new GPS functions.
Users’ attitudes towards electronic active safety systems in vehicles – May 2006 50

Qualitative Study
ANNEXES
Users’ attitudes towards electronic active safety systems in vehicles – May 2006 51

Qualitative Study
ANNEX I
PARTNER INSTITUTES
Users’ attitudes towards electronic active safety systems in vehicles – May 2006 52

Qualitative Study
PARTNER INSTITUTES IN THE SIX COUNTRIES
INCLUDED IN THE SCOPE OF THE STUDY
Germany: Echanges Marktforschung (Cologne)
France: CSA (Paris)
Italy: Market Dynamics International (Milan)
Poland: BSM (Warsaw)
Finland: Marketing Radar (Helsinki)
United Kingdom: Andrew Irving Associates (London)
Users’ attitudes towards electronic active safety systems in vehicles – May 2006 53

Qualitative Study
ANNEX II :
COMPOSITION OF THE SAMPLES
Users’ attitudes towards electronic active safety systems in vehicles – May 2006 54

Qualitative Study
CAR OWNERS’ GROUP DISCUSSIONS
COMPOSITION OF THE SAMPLE
Medium-high range Low-medium range
Men Women New
car
Second
hand
Men Women New
car
Germany 4 4 4 4 5 3 4 4
(Cologne, 03.03.2006) (Cologne, 04.03.2006)
France 6 3 6 3 6 3 5 4
(Paris, 23.03.2006) (Paris, 24.03.2006)
Italy 4 4 6 2 4 4 4 4
(Milan, 07.03.2006) (Milan, 09.03.2006)
Poland 4 4 6 2 3 5 4 4
(Warsaw, 29.03.2006) (Warsaw, 29.03.2006)
Finland 5 3 4 4 5 3 4 4
(Helsinki, 30.03.2006) (Helsinki, 29.03.2006)
United-Kingdom 4 4 5 3 4 3 4 3
(Surrey, 03.04.2006) (Surrey, 04.04.2006)
Second
hand
Users’ attitudes towards electronic active safety systems in vehicles – May 2006 55

Qualitative Study
PERSONAL INTERVIEWS
Professional drivers
Germany France Italy Poland Finland United-
Kingdom
Taxis 2 2 2 2 2 2
Vans 2 2 2 2 2 2
Heavy lorries 2 2 2 2 2 2
Fleet managers
Taxis 1 1 1 1 1 0
Vans 1 1 1 1 1 1
Heavy lorries 1 1 1 1 1 1
Personal cars 2 1 1 1 1 2
Car salesmen 4 4 4 4 4 4
Driving school instructors 3 3 3 3 3 3
Pedestrians 3 3 3 3 3 3
Users’ attitudes towards electronic active safety systems in vehicles – May 2006 56

Qualitative Study
ANNEX III
DISCUSSION AND INTERVIEW GUIDES
Users’ attitudes towards electronic active safety systems in vehicles – May 2006 57

Qualitative Study
INTRODUCTION
74, chemin de la Ferme des Bois
78950 GAMBAIS
QUALITATIVE STUDY
« TELEMATICS FOR TRAFFIC »
DISCUSSION GUIDE
PRIVATE CAR OWNERS
(15.02.2006)
Hello, I am …., from …., the research agency in charge of the study which brings us here together
today.
Before we actually begin our discussion, may I ask each of you to introduce him/herself with a few
words: who you are, where you live, if you live alone or together with someone else, if you have
children and how old they are, and finally what you do for living and/or what your spouse/partner does
if applicable.
THEME I
I.1 The first topic I would like to discuss is car usage. Could each of you please tell me how
he/she uses his/her own car(s), i.e. how frequently, which kinds of trips, where, and how many
kilometres per year you cover, etc.
I.2 Could you tell me about your feelings when driving, i.e. do you find it something pleasant to
do, or on the contrary unpleasant or worrying – if so what particularly worries you when driving your
car?
THEME II
II.1 Let us now think back to the time when you decided to buy the car(s) that you are now
owning.
Could each of you first tell me which car model(s) he/she now owns, when that car was bought and if
it was bought new or second hand, and which were the main reasons why you decided to buy that car
rather than another model.
II.2 Let us now discuss several factors that may play a role when deciding to buy a car: how
important is each one, and how exactly does it play a role in selecting the model you eventually buy?
Probe: importance and role of the following factors:
• Performance
• Design/aesthetics
• Capacity/space
• Comfort
• Safety
Users’ attitudes towards electronic active safety systems in vehicles – May 2006 58

Qualitative Study
• Durability/robustness
• Fuel consumption
• Level of equipment/options
• Reputation of the brand
• (Any other important factor)
THEME III
III.1 Safety is one of the factors I would like to discuss further.
Overall, how safe do you feel when you drive? Have you ever felt particularly unsafe, in what
circumstances – please tell me what made you feel particularly unsafe then.
III.2 Do you also happen to feel unsafe for other categories of road users?
Which ones particularly? In what circumstances?
III.3 One hears a lot these days about improving driving safety.
What, in your opinion, could contribute the most to improving safety?
THEME IV
IV.1 There are several factors involved in improving safety – including safety devices and systems
installed in the car itself. Which devices and systems have you heard about? How do they work?
IV.2 We often hear the phrases “passive safety” and “active safety”, what does this mean to you?
IV.3 Thinking of your own car(s), which active safety devices and systems does it/do they have?
When you bought your car(s), how much information did you obtain on these? From whom/which
sources? And how important was it in you decision to buy that model rather than another model?
IV.4 Thinking of your next car purchase(s), how important are such safety devices and systems
likely to be in your decision – both existing systems and new systems that could be offered on the
market in the next few years?
THEME V
V.1 I am going to present to you a number of car safety systems that already exist or are likely to
be developed shortly.
We are going to discuss each of them, in the following terms:
• What you knew about this system so far
• If you have it on your car – this applies to some of these systems which are already
available on certain car models – and what is your car manufacturer’s own name for it
• How interesting/useful you feel it would be to have it on your next car(s)
(Show the respondents the definitions of each of the systems A to J one by one, and probe for their
reactions before presenting the definition of the next system).
A. ABS – Anti-blocking system
B. ESP – Electronic stability program
C. Adaptive headlights
D. Speed alert
E. Driver condition monitoring
F. Lane departure warning
G. Obstacle and collision warning
H. Local danger warning
I. RTTI – Real time Travel and Traffic Information
Users’ attitudes towards electronic active safety systems in vehicles – May 2006 59

Qualitative Study
J. E call
V.2 When we buy a car, we obviously have many factors in mind. Ideally, we would like our car
to have absolutely everything in it, but the actual decision is a matter of compromise between different
desirable options.
Going back to the different safety systems we have been discussing, assuming they are all available on
an optional basis, please fill-in this short questionnaire, and note down:
• Which ones you would really like to have – i.e. you would be ready to sacrifice other
(non-safety related) features to have them
• Which ones you might also wish to have, yet without having to make sacrifices on other
features
• Which ones you would not really bother about
Once you have done it, I will be interested to hear your comments about your answers.
THEME VI
VI.1 Where would you be likely to try and obtain information and advice regarding these car safety
systems – any sources that you may think of. Why these sources, what makes you feel they are useful
and reliable information sources?
Spontaneous reactions; then probe: interest for and credibility of information from:
• Government bodies
• Car manufacturers
• Motoring clubs
• Consumer associations
• Media articles/programmes
• Car salesmen
• Driving schools
• Insurance companies
• Word of mouth (from whom)
VI.2 Lastly, which incentives would be likely to make you actually buy a car equipped with such
systems when you next buy a car? Who – which kinds of organisations – could initiate and promote
these incentives? What should they be like to make you actually decide to have these systems installed
in your car(s)?
VI.3 Here are some possible incentives. For each one, please tell me if it would actually make you
buy your next car equipped with one of these safety systems, and why.
A. A 10 % rebate on your insurance premium
B. A promotional offer by the car dealer offering one of these systems free, in place of another
free option (such as air-conditioning, sun roof, a quality CD player, electric seats …)
C. A tax incentive or reduction of the registration fee amounting to 30 % of the cost of the system
Users’ attitudes towards electronic active safety systems in vehicles – May 2006 60

Qualitative Study
INTRODUCTION
QUALITATIVE STUDY
« TELEMATICS FOR TRAFFIC »
INTERVIEW GUIDE
PROFESSIONAL DRIVERS
(15.02.2006)
Before we actually begin our interview, could you please tell me about your work as a driver: if you
are self-employed or a company’s employee, and if so what about this company: its size (in terms of
number of employees and number of vehicles) and its core business activities (please describe).
THEME I
I.1 The first topic I would like to discuss is vehicle usage. Could you please tell me how you use
your vehicle(s), i.e. which kinds of trips, where, and how many kilometres per year you cover, etc.
I.2 Could you tell me about your feelings when driving, i.e. do you find it something pleasant to
do, or on the contrary unpleasant or worrying – if so what particularly worries you when driving as
part of your work?
THEME II
II.1 Let us now think back to the time when the decision was made to buy the vehicle(s) that you
drive.
Could you first tell me which vehicle model(s) it is, when it was/they were bought, and which were the
main reasons for deciding to buy that/those model(s) rather than another model.
II.2 Let us now discuss several factors that may play a role when deciding to buy a vehicle: how
important is each one, and how exactly does it play a role in selecting the model eventually bought?
Probe: importance and role of the following factors:
• Performance
• Design/aesthetics
• Capacity/space
• Comfort
• Safety
• Durability/robustness
• Fuel consumption
• Level of equipment/options
• Reputation of the brand
• (Any other important factor)
THEME III
III.1 Safety is one of the factors I would like to discuss further.
Overall, how safe do you feel when you drive? Have you ever felt particularly unsafe, in what
circumstances – please tell me what made you feel particularly unsafe then.
Users’ attitudes towards electronic active safety systems in vehicles – May 2006 61

Qualitative Study
III.2 Do you also happen to feel unsafe for other categories of road users?
Which ones particularly? In what circumstances?
III.3 One hears a lot these days about improving driving safety.
What, in your opinion, could contribute the most to improving safety?
THEME IV
IV.1 There are several factors involved in improving safety – including safety devices and systems
installed in the vehicle itself. Which devices and systems have you heard about? How do they work?
IV.2 We often hear the phrases “passive safety” and “active safety”, what does this mean to you?
IV.3 Thinking of the vehicle(s) you drive, which active safety devices and systems does it/do they
have? When it was/they were bought, how much information did you obtain on these? From
whom/which sources? And how important was it in the decision to buy that/those model(s) rather than
another model?
IV.4 Thinking of your future vehicles, how important are such safety devices and systems likely to
be in the purchase decision – both existing systems and new systems that could be offered on the
market in the next few years?
THEME V
V.1 I am going to present to you a number of vehicle safety systems that already exist or are likely
to be developed shortly.
We are going to discuss each of them, in the following terms:
• What you knew about this system so far
• If you have it on your vehicle(s) – this applies to some of these systems which are already
available on certain vehicle models – and what is your vehicle manufacturer’s own name
for it
• How interesting/useful you feel it would be to have it on your next vehicle(s)
(Show the respondents the definitions of each of the systems A to J one by one, and probe for their
reactions before presenting the definition of the next system).
A. ABS – Anti-blocking system
B. ESP – Electronic stability program
C. Adaptive headlights
D. Speed alert
E. Driver condition monitoring
F. Lane departure warning
G. Obstacle and collision warning
H. Local danger warning
I. RTTI – Real time Travel and Traffic Information
J. E call
V.2 When acquiring a new vehicle, many factors obviously play a role. Ideally, we would like our
vehicles to have absolutely everything in them, but the actual decision is a matter of compromise
between different desirable options.
Going back to the different safety systems we have been discussing, assuming they are all available on
an optional basis, please fill-in this short questionnaire, and note down:
• Which ones you would really like to have – i.e. you would be ready to sacrifice other
(non-safety related) features to have them
Users’ attitudes towards electronic active safety systems in vehicles – May 2006 62

Qualitative Study
• Which ones you might also wish to have, yet without having to make sacrifices on other
features
• Which ones you would not really bother about
Once you have done it, I will be interested to hear your comments about your answers.
THEME VI
VI.1 Where would you be likely to try and obtain information and advice regarding these vehicle
safety systems – any sources that you may think of. Why these sources, what makes you feel they are
useful and reliable information sources?
Spontaneous reactions; then probe: interest for and credibility of information from:
• Government bodies
• Vehicle manufacturers
• Motoring clubs
• Your profession’s own associations
• Media articles/programmes
• Vehicle salesmen
• Insurance companies
• Word of mouth (from whom)
VI.2 Lastly, which incentives would be likely to lead to a decision to acquire a vehicle equipped
with such systems next time? Who – which kinds of organisations – could initiate and promote these
incentives? What should they be like to lead to a decision actually to have these systems installed in
your vehicle(s)?
VI.3 Here are some possible incentives. For each one, please tell me if it would actually lead to a
decision to acquire a vehicle equipped with one of these safety systems, and why.
A. A 10 % rebate on the insurance premium
B. A promotional offer by the vehicle dealer offering one of these systems free, in place of
another free option
C. A tax incentive or reduction of the registration fee amounting to 30 % of the cost of the system
Users’ attitudes towards electronic active safety systems in vehicles – May 2006 63

Qualitative Study
INTRODUCTION
QUALITATIVE STUDY
« TELEMATICS FOR TRAFFIC »
INTERVIEW GUIDE
FLEET MANAGERS
(15.02.2006)
Before we actually begin our interview, could you please tell me a little about your own job (i.e. your
job title and your responsibilities) and about your company: its size (in terms of number of employees
and number of vehicles) and its core business activities (please describe).
THEME I
I.1 The first topic I would like to discuss is vehicle usage. Could you please tell me how your
vehicles are used, i.e. which kinds of trips, where, and how many kilometres per year they cover, etc.
I.2 Could you tell me about your drivers’ feelings when driving, i.e. do they find it something
pleasant to do, or on the contrary unpleasant or worrying – if so what particularly worries them when
driving as part of their work?
THEME II
II.1 Let us now think back to the time when the decisions were made to buy the vehicles in your
fleet.
Could you first tell me which vehicle model(s) they are, when they were bought, and which were the
main reasons for deciding to buy that/those model(s) rather than another model.
II.2 Let us now discuss several factors that may play a role when deciding to buy a vehicle: how
important is each one, and how exactly does it play a role in selecting the model eventually bought?
Probe: importance and role of the following factors:
• Performance
• Design/aesthetics
• Capacity/space
• Comfort
• Safety
• Durability/robustness
• Fuel consumption
• Level of equipment/options
• Reputation of the brand
• (Any other important factor)
THEME III
III.1 Safety is one of the factors I would like to discuss further.
Overall, how safe do you feel about your drivers’ driving? Do they ever feel particularly unsafe, in
what circumstances – please tell me what makes them feel particularly unsafe then.
Users’ attitudes towards electronic active safety systems in vehicles – May 2006 64

Qualitative Study
III.2 Do you also happen to feel unsafe for other categories of road users?
Which ones particularly? In what circumstances?
III.3 One hears a lot these days about improving driving safety.
What, in your opinion, could contribute the most to improving safety?
THEME IV
IV.1 There are several factors involved in improving safety – including safety devices and systems
installed in the vehicle itself. Which devices and systems have you heard about? How do they work?
IV.2 We often hear the phrases “passive safety” and “active safety”, how would you define these
notions – what do they involve?
IV.3 Thinking of your fleet’s vehicles, which active safety devices and systems do they have?
When they were bought, how much information did you obtain on these? From whom/which sources?
And how important was it in the decision to buy that/those model(s) rather than another model?
IV.4 Thinking of your future vehicles, how important are such safety devices and systems likely to
be in the purchase decision – both existing systems and new systems that could be offered on the
market in the next few years?
THEME V
V.1 I am going to present to you a number of vehicle safety systems that already exist or are likely
to be developed shortly.
We are going to discuss each of them, in the following terms:
• What you knew about this system so far
• If you have it on your vehicles – this applies to some of these systems which are already
available on certain vehicle models – and what is your vehicle manufacturer’s own name
for it
• How interesting/useful you feel it would be to have it on your next vehicles
(Show the respondents the definitions of each of the systems A to J one by one, and probe for their
reactions before presenting the definition of the next system).
A. ABS – Anti-blocking system
B. ESP – Electronic stability program
C. Adaptive headlights
D. Speed alert
E. Driver condition monitoring
F. Lane departure warning
G. Obstacle and collision warning
H. Local danger warning
I. RTTI – Real time Travel and Traffic Information
J. E call
V.2 When acquiring new vehicles, many factors obviously play a role. Ideally, we would like our
vehicles to have absolutely everything in them, but the actual decision is a matter of compromise
between different desirable options.
Going back to the different safety systems we have been discussing, assuming they are all available on
an optional basis, please fill-in this short questionnaire, and note down:
• Which ones you would really like to have – i.e. you would be ready to sacrifice other
(non-safety related) features to have them
Users’ attitudes towards electronic active safety systems in vehicles – May 2006 65

Qualitative Study
• Which ones you might also wish to have, yet without having to make sacrifices on other
features
• Which ones you would not really bother about
Once you have done it, I will be interested to hear your comments about your answers.
THEME VI
VI.1 Where would you be likely to try and obtain information and advice regarding these vehicle
safety systems – any sources that you may think of. Why these sources, what makes you feel they are
useful and reliable information sources?
Spontaneous reactions; then probe: interest for and credibility of information from:
• Government bodies
• Vehicle manufacturers
• Motoring clubs
• Your profession’s own associations
• Media articles/programmes
• Vehicle salesmen
• Insurance companies
• Word of mouth (from whom)
VI.2 Lastly, which incentives would be likely to lead to a decision to acquire new vehicles
equipped with such systems next time? Who – which kinds of organisations – could initiate and
promote these incentives? What should they be like to lead to a decision actually to have these systems
installed in your vehicles?
VI.3 Here are some possible incentives. For each one, please tell me if it would actually lead to a
decision to acquire vehicles equipped with one of these safety systems, and why.
A. A 10 % rebate on the insurance premium
C. A promotional offer by the vehicle dealer offering one of these systems free, in place of
another free option
D. A tax incentive or reduction of the registration fee amounting to 30 % of the cost of the system
Users’ attitudes towards electronic active safety systems in vehicles – May 2006 66

Qualitative Study
INTRODUCTION
QUALITATIVE STUDY
« TELEMATICS FOR TRAFFIC »
INTERVIEW GUIDE
CAR SELLERS/DRIVING SCHOOL TEACHERS
(15.02.2006)
Before we actually begin our interview, could you please tell me a little about your work and the
company/establishment where you work?
THEME I
I.1 The first topic I would like to discuss is car usage. Do you deal with different types of people
as regards car usage, i.e. how frequently, which kinds of trips, where, and how many kilometres per
year they cover or plan to cover, etc.
I.2 Could you give me your feelings about people’s driving, i.e. do they find it something pleasant
to do, or on the contrary unpleasant or worrying – if so what particularly worries them when driving
their car?
THEME II
II.1 Let us now think of the people you deal with, when they decide or plan to buy a car.
Which are their main reasons for deciding to buy a car model rather than another model?
II.2 Let us now discuss several factors that may play a role when deciding to buy a car: how
important do you think is each one, and how exactly does it play a role in selecting the model people
eventually buy?
Probe: importance and role of the following factors:
• Performance
• Design/aesthetics
• Capacity/space
• Comfort
• Safety
• Durability/robustness
• Fuel consumption
• Level of equipment/options
• Reputation of the brand
• (Any other important factor)
THEME III
III.1 Safety is one of the factors I would like to discuss further.
Overall, how safe do you feel people are when they drive? Do they ever feel particularly unsafe, in
what circumstances – according to you what makes them feel particularly unsafe then?
III.2 Do you also happen to feel unsafe for other categories of road users?
Users’ attitudes towards electronic active safety systems in vehicles – May 2006 67

Qualitative Study
Which ones particularly? In what circumstances?
III.3 One hears a lot these days about improving driving safety.
What, in your opinion, could contribute the most to improving safety?
THEME IV
IV.1 There are several factors involved in improving safety – including safety devices and systems
installed in the car itself. Which devices and systems have you heard about? How do they work?
IV.2 We often hear the phrases “passive safety” and “active safety”, how would you define these
notions – what do they involve?
IV.3 Thinking of people who have active safety devices and systems installed on their car, how
much information do you think they obtained on these? From whom/which sources? And how
important was it in their decision to buy a model rather than another model?
IV.4 Thinking of future car purchases, how important are such safety devices and systems likely to
be in car owners’ decisions – both existing systems and new systems that could be offered on the
market in the next few years?
THEME V
V.1 I am going to present to you a number of car safety systems that already exist or are likely to
be developed shortly.
We are going to discuss each of them, in the following terms:
• What you knew about this system so far
• The profile of people who already have it on their car – this applies to some of these
systems which are already available on certain car models
• How interesting/useful you feel it would be for improving car safety
(Show the respondents the definitions of each of the systems A to J one by one, and probe for their
reactions before presenting the definition of the next system).
A. ABS – Anti-blocking system
B. ESP – Electronic stability program
C. Adaptive headlights
D. Speed alert
E. Driver condition monitoring
F. Lane departure warning
G. Obstacle and collision warning
H. Local danger warning
I. RTTI – Real time Travel and Traffic Information
J. E call
V.2 When buying a car, people obviously have many factors in mind. Ideally, they would like their
car to have absolutely everything in it, but the actual decision is a matter of compromise between
different desirable options.
Going back to the different safety systems we have been discussing, assuming they are all available on
an optional basis, please fill-in this short questionnaire, and note down:
• Which ones you think would really be very useful – i.e. safety would really be improved if
more cars were equipped with them
• Which ones you feel would also be desirable, yet not with the same degree of priority
• Which ones you feel would not really be very useful
Once you have done it, I will be interested to hear your comments about your answers.
Users’ attitudes towards electronic active safety systems in vehicles – May 2006 68

Qualitative Study
THEME VI
VI.1 Which do you feel would be the best sources to obtain information and advice regarding these
car safety systems – any sources that you may think of. Why these sources, what makes you feel they
are useful and reliable information sources?
Spontaneous reactions; then probe: interest for and credibility of information from:
• Government bodies
• Car manufacturers
• Motoring clubs
• Your profession’s own associations
• Media articles/programmes
• Car salesmen
• Driving schools
• Insurance companies
• Word of mouth (from whom)
VI.2 Lastly, which incentives would be likely to lead people to buy a car equipped with such
systems? Who – which kinds of organisations – could initiate and promote these incentives? What
should they be like to make them actually decide to have these systems installed in their car?
VI.3 Here are some possible incentives. For each one, please tell me if it would actually be
instrumental to make people buy cars equipped with one of these safety systems, and why.
A. A 10 % rebate on the insurance premium
B. A promotional offer by car dealers offering one of these systems free, in place of another free
option (such as air-conditioning, sun roof, a quality CD player, electric seats …)
C. A tax incentive or reduction of the registration fee amounting to 30 % of the cost of the system
Users’ attitudes towards electronic active safety systems in vehicles – May 2006 69

Qualitative Study
INTRODUCTION
QUALITATIVE STUDY
« TELEMATICS FOR TRAFFIC »
INTERVIEW GUIDE
PEDESTRIANS
(15.02.2006)
Before we actually begin our interview, may I ask a few details about yourself: who you are, where
you live, if you live alone or together with someone else, if you have children and how old they are,
and finally what you do for living and/or what your spouse/partner does if applicable.
THEME I
I.1 The first topic I would like to discuss is usage of different means of transport. If you
personally have a car, can you please tell me when you use it, i.e. how frequently, which kinds of trips,
where, and how many kilometres per year you cover, etc, and when you do not use it. If you do not
own a car, could you tell me why, and which means of transport you use instead?
I.2 Could you give me your feelings about people’s driving, i.e. is it something that worries you –
if so what particularly worries you as a pedestrian about people’s driving?
THEME II
II.1 Let us now think of people you know when they decide or plan to buy a car.
Which are their main reasons for deciding to buy a car model rather than another model?
II.2 Let us now discuss several factors that may play a role when deciding to buy a car: how
important do you think is each one, and how exactly does it play a role in selecting the model people
eventually buy?
Probe: importance and role of the following factors:
• Performance
• Design/aesthetics
• Capacity/space
• Comfort
• Safety
• Durability/robustness
• Fuel consumption
• Level of equipment/options
• Reputation of the brand
• (Any other important factor)
THEME III
III.1 Safety is one of the factors I would like to discuss further.
Overall, how safe do you feel as a pedestrian? Have you ever felt particularly unsafe, in what
circumstances – please tell me what made you feel particularly unsafe then.
Users’ attitudes towards electronic active safety systems in vehicles – May 2006 70

Qualitative Study
III.2 Do you also happen to feel unsafe for other categories of road users?
Which ones particularly? In what circumstances?
III.3 One hears a lot these days about improving driving safety.
What, in your opinion, could contribute the most to improving safety?
THEME IV
IV.1 There are several factors involved in improving safety – including safety devices and systems
installed in the car itself. Which devices and systems have you heard about? How do they work?
IV.2 We often hear the phrases “passive safety” and “active safety”, what does this mean to you?
IV.3 Thinking of people who have active safety devices and systems installed on their cars, how
much information do you think they obtained on these? From whom/which sources? And how
important was it in their decision to buy a model rather than another model?
IV.4 Thinking of future car purchases, how important are such safety devices and systems likely to
be in car owners’ decisions – both existing systems and new systems that could be offered on the
market in the next few years?
THEME V
V.1 I am going to present to you a number of car safety systems that already exist or are likely to
be developed shortly.
We are going to discuss each of them, in the following terms:
• What you knew about this system so far
• The profile of people who already have it on their car – this applies to some of these
systems which are already available on certain car models
• How interesting/useful you feel it would be for improving car safety?
(Show the respondents the definitions of each of the systems A to J one by one, and probe for their
reactions before presenting the definition of the next system).
A. ABS – Anti-blocking system
B. ESP – Electronic stability program
C. Adaptive headlights
D. Speed alert
E. Driver condition monitoring
F. Lane departure warning
G. Obstacle and collision warning
H. Local danger warning
I. RTTI – Real time Travel and Traffic Information
J. E call
V.2 When buying a car, people obviously have many factors in mind. Ideally, they would like their
car to have absolutely everything in it, but the actual decision is a matter of compromise between
different desirable options.
Going back to the different safety systems we have been discussing, assuming they are all available on
an optional basis, please fill-in this short questionnaire, and note down:
• Which ones you think would really be very useful – i.e. you would really feel safer if
more cars were equipped with them
• Which ones you feel would also be desirable, yet not with the same degree of priority
• Which ones you feel would not really be very useful
Users’ attitudes towards electronic active safety systems in vehicles – May 2006 71

Qualitative Study
Once you have done it, I will be interested to hear your comments about your answers.
THEME VI
VI.1 Which do you feel would be the best sources to obtain information and advice regarding these
car safety systems – any sources that you may think of. Why these sources, what makes you feel they
are useful and reliable information sources?
Spontaneous reactions; then probe: interest for and credibility of information from:
• Government bodies
• Car manufacturers
• Motoring clubs
• Consumer associations
• Media articles/programmes
• Car salesmen
• Driving schools
• Insurance companies
• Word of mouth (from whom)
VI.2 Lastly, which incentives would be likely to lead people to buy a car equipped with such
systems? Who – which kinds of organisations – could initiate and promote these incentives? What
should they be like to make them actually decide to have these systems installed in their car?
VI.3 Here are some possible incentives. For each one, please tell me if you feel it would actually be
instrumental to make people buy cars equipped with one of these safety systems, and why.
A. A 10 % rebate on the insurance premium
B. A promotional offer by car dealers offering one of these systems free, in place of another free
option (such as air-conditioning, sun roof, a quality CD player, electric seats …)
C. A tax incentive or reduction of the registration fee amounting to 30 % of the cost of the system
Users’ attitudes towards electronic active safety systems in vehicles – May 2006 72

eSafety website:
The eSafety Initiative
http://europa.eu.int/information_society/programmes/esafety/index_en.htm
INFSO-esafety@ec.europa.eu
eSafety Support is a European Commission funded project assisting the eSafety initiative in its goal of reducing
the number of fatal road accidents in Europe.
The project’s main tasks are to stimulate and monitor the activities, progress and results generated by the eSafety
initiative. It offers assistance to the eSafety Forum and its Working Groups, keeps all stakeholders up-to-date on
eSafety progress and findings, and promotes the benefits of Intelligent Vehicle Safety Systems to the general public.
Its objectives include:
• Aid and promote the dialogue between all eSafety stakeholders
• Support the implementation of a pan-European emergency call system (eCall)
• Launch studies on topics identified by the eSafety Forum
• Support the development of the Implementation Road Map for all Intelligent Vehicle Safety Systems
• Monitor and promote the implementation of the eSafety Working Groups’ recommendations
• Support the i2010 Intelligent Car Initiative that aims to develop and deploy vehicles that are smarter, safer and cleaner.
For more information, visit www.esafetysupport.org
© 2006 Produced by eSafety Support