Listen Live  
Radio Free -
Radio Free never takes money from corporations, keeping our focus on people, not profits. Radio Free is an independent, free news organization headquartered in Tucson, Arizona. We are currently in need of community volunteers to help cover local politics. To learn more and get involved, please visit

The British played a significant unsung role in advancing EU car safety regulations. But – just as the industry moves towards greater innovation – Britain wants to take a back seat.

Image: Crash test – in pre 98 models, the dummies if human would have all died. Credit: NCAP

Regulation is too often seen as inherently boring. But
today tens of thousands of people owe their lives to good European regulation
imposed against the wishes of the motor industry in 1998. Regulation is the
anvil of life and death outcomes. It is at least as important as ownership – its
consequences more widely relevant across our entire social and economic

Anthony Barnett’s article for openDemocracy
on the significance of regulation as a fourth domain of power and authority alongside
the executive, the legislature and the judiciary, and how Brexit will be shaped
by it – is welcome. If ‘Take back control’ was Brexit’s major selling point,
then voters will learn this applies to their chances of survival in road
crashes and the quality of the air they breathe. Yet, outside the Single
Market, Britain will become just a follower of European Union (EU) vehicle
safety and emission standards. This is the reality.

The irony is that one of the UK’s most
successful unsung achievements has been the role the British played in
advancing EU consumer protection and public health. The adoption twenty years
ago of new crash test standards has halved the number of car occupant deaths.
This dramatic improvement in road
safety is a success story of UK engagement in the Single Market led by British
research and campaigners. Their actions have significantly reduced road deaths
not just in the UK but across the EU.

In the mid 1990’s over
45,000 people were killed annually in road crashes across the EU. Outdated 1970s
crash test regulations were in force, leaving vital safety features like air bags
as optional extras. Eventually, in 1995, it was agreed to upgrade EU vehicle
safety standards. But, due to intense industry pressure, the European Commission’s
original proposals barely increased the stringency of the requirements at all. Tougher
and more realistic front and side impact tests were relegated to a vague
‘second stage’, despite the fact that the UK’s Transport Research Laboratory (TRL)
had shown that thousands of deaths could be avoided if the stronger and more
realistic crash tests were applied.

The opportunity for a radical improvement in these scandalously
weak proposals came through the new powers given to the European Parliament to
amend draft legislation, thanks to the Maastricht Treaty. The lead ‘rapporteur’
on the crash test legislation was the then Labour MEP for Tyne and Wear, Alan
Donnelly. He tabled amendments based on TRL’s research which were supported by
a pan European grass roots campaign organised by consumer and safety groups.
They called for the immediate adoption of the tougher crash tests. The
Parliament unanimously adopted Donnelly’s amendments and the new much more
stringent crash test standards entered into force from October 1998. Twenty
years on and the number of lives lost in crashes has dropped to 25,000 with
improved car occupant safety the single most significant factor in this huge
improvement in EU road safety survival, as this shocking video of a dummy crash test shows.

This experience shows how
it is possible to achieve a big win for the public interest in the Single
Market. The industry lobby was defeated because the UK had shared sovereignty
over regulations with other EU governments and the European Parliament.
Post-Brexit, acting alone, it will be far harder for this country to similarly challenge
the multinational lobbying power of the automotive industry.

‘Not so’ according to Britain’s Prime
Minister, Theresa May, who claims there are international regulatory systems
that we can rely on after leaving the EU. In her Mansion House speech last
March, she argued that many EU product rules “are underpinned by international
standards set by non-EU bodies of which we will remain a member – such as the
UN Economic Commission for Europe (UNECE), which sets vehicle safety
standards”. By going global, Mrs May implies Britain has nothing to lose. But her
argument displays woeful ignorance of the reality of rule setting in the UNECE
which is dominated by one large block of nations – you’ve guessed it, the EU.

The UNECE’s World Forum for Harmonisation for
Vehicle Regulations based in Geneva is an important global standard setting
body. Today, 54 governments are parties to an international agreement for ‘type
approval’ regulations that are critical to the safety performance of vehicles
on our roads. At its meetings in Geneva about 38 governments usually attend
including EU Member States, but with a crucial difference; the EU vote together
as a block of 28 countries. Decisions in the World Forum require a four-fifths
majority and this is easily managed by the EU, which almost invariably secures
the result it wants. So Theresa May got it backwards. It is EU decision-making
that underpins the adoption of UNECE regulations and not the other way around.
So, outside the EU, even in the UNECE, the UK will be effectively just a rule-taker.

This relegation to the second division in
automotive regulations will have serious consequences for British consumers.
Dieselgate exposed the lengths to which vehicle manufacturers are prepared to
go to avoid compliance with regulations to protect air quality. Volkswagen’s
blatant cheating of US diesel emission standards also exposed weakness in the
EU’s regulatory system. Fundamentally, this was caused by a policy bias in
favour of diesel technology due to its usually higher levels of fuel efficiency
and lower CO2 emissions compared with petrol engines. The air quality issue of
higher diesel emissions of nitrogen oxides were marginalised. Now, much too
late, tougher standards together with a more robust type approval system are being
applied; with the EU’s system exposed as imperfect and still very liable to
corporate influence.

In leaving the EU’s system of vehicle
regulation, however, UK citizens are unlikely to find themselves in a stronger
position vis a vis the motor industry’s corporate power. Our voice in the
Council of Ministers and the European Parliament will not be heard and our
influence gone. This will have profound implications for the interests of the
public and our automotive industry. The Government is wrong to think that
membership of the UNECE can side step the negative impact of Brexit. We will be
less influential there, following rather than leading discussions in Geneva
about future regulations. We will also be unable to participate in the EU’s
framework programme for research and innovation that is closely related to the
automotive regulatory process. This will harm our universities, research
laboratories, and automotive suppliers. At a time of great innovation and
change in vehicle technologies this is extraordinarily short-sighted.

To sort out this Brexit mess, it is time that
reality and a hard-headed assessment of the UK’s national interest should take
precedence over the vague assurances offered by Theresa May. To retain a strong
influence in global automotive policy making we need to remain in the Customs
Union and the Single Market. This should be negotiated with a specific
agreement to maintain UK participation in motor vehicle policy-making both in
Brussels at the EU and in Geneva at the UNECE. That is the way for us to keep
some ownership over a rule-making process that is vital for our vehicle
manufacturing industry, environmental protection, and the safety of millions of
us using our roads.

David Ward is Secretary General of the Global
New Car Assessment Programme. He writes in a personal capacity.


[1]Car Crash Brexit – How the UK is set to become a second-hand dealer in EU automotive regulation | openDemocracy ....[2]Why Brexit won’t work: the EU is about regulation not sovereignty | openDemocracy ....[3]Euro NCAP Newsroom : Euro NCAP 20 Years Clip ....[4]Car Crash Brexit – How the UK is set to become a second-hand dealer in EU automotive regulation | openDemocracy ....