GRRF sept 2000
rendu de la réunion du 11 septembre 2000 du GRRF.
Site internet des Nations Unies à Genève
No. 89 (Speed limitation devices)
TRANS/WP.29/GRRF/2000/26; informal document No. 16 of annex 1 to this report.
The expert from France presented document TRANS/WP.29/GRRF/2000/26, on behalf
of the drafting group in charge of proposing amendments to Regulation No. 89
(TRANS/WP.29/GRRF/47, para. 52). He reminded GRRF that the devices for
passenger cars were proposed to be always activated voluntarily by the driver.
The expert from Germany reminded GRRF that WP.29 had amended the report of the
forty-seventh GRRF session (TRANS/WP.29/735, para. 45.) in order to reflect
the German position of this proposal. He insisted that the inclusion of speed
limitation devices for M1 category vehicles should at first be decided on a
The experts from France, Denmark, Finland, the Netherlands, Hungary, Sweden
and the United Kingdom supported the proposal in principle. The expert from
Hungary suggested that the decision to have speed information independently of
the driver such as by radio (para. 126.96.36.199.2.) should be taken at a political
level. The expert from Sweden suggested that the possibility of the
installation of the speed self-control devices in the after-market should be
considered. The expert from the United Kingdom opposed the provision not
allowing the use of the braking system for speed control (para. 188.8.131.52.), and
announced a counter-proposal to allow it.
55. The expert from Germany, and OICA opposed the
proposal; the expert from OICA pointed out that the speed limitation device is
a comfort device offered by the industry, and he resisted having any
prescription for a device which would be activated voluntarily by the driver.
He also said that having prescriptions could be a restriction for
manufacturers. The expert from Japan informed GRRF that his country was not in
favour of the proposal. The expert from the European Community informed GRRF
that the European Community had considered this issue at a high level and that
the decision, which had been taken, was to continue its consideration at a
technical level in GRRF.
Concluding the debate, GRRF agreed to continue considering the proposal of
document TRANS/WP.29/GRRF/2000/26. The expert from Germany suggested that
before going to any detail the proposal should be revised.
After consideration of several paragraphs of the proposal, GRRF agreed that a
new meeting of the drafting group was necessary, and requested the expert from
France to organize it. The expert from CLEPA announced that informal document
No. 16 would be presented to the informal group. GRRF invited the experts
concerned to indicate to the expert from France their intention to take part
in the meeting (see annex 2 to this report).