Cableways Impact Assessment Study - Final Report - saferail.nl

More documents

Recommendations

Info

IA Study Concerning the Revision of the Cableways Directive 3. IMPACT OF THE CABLEWAYS DIRECTIVE ON THE CABLEWAYS SECTOR 3.1 Overview This section summarises the main impacts of the Directive, based on the information obtained from literature review and stakeholder consultation as summarised in Section 2. It focuses on two main impacts: impacts relative to the aims of the Directive and impacts on the functioning and on the structure of the cableways sector. 3.2 Impacts in Relation to the Aims of the Directive The Cableways Directive (2000/9/EC) was established with the aim of ensuring the safety and free movement of cableway components by harmonising passenger safety and protection requirements. Its two fundamental objectives are passenger safety and the creation of a single market (EC, 2006). In terms of the creation of a single market, it is clear that the Directive has harmonised national legislation on design, manufacture and conformity assessment of subsystems and safety components. This is supported by the fact that the transposition of the Directive at national level did not, on the whole, run into any particular problems, and it was not necessary to start infringement proceedings against any Member State (EC, 2011). Publicly available data are generally not sufficient for a comprehensive and robust assessment of the impacts of the Directive on passenger safety. Even where accident/incident data exist, they either highlight individual accident cases or provide an insufficient basis for drawing any conclusions. This is because a robust assessment would require a detailed examination of the causes of each incident (technical malfunction, user behaviour etc.) and of the installation involved (approved in accordance with Directive 2000/9/EC or predating the Directive) and of the total number of installations in use or of the number of passengers carried. For instance, the numbers of serious accidents in France associated with cableways are available for 2002 – 2007 and presented in Table 3.1. Please note that the reason why accident data are presented in this report for certain countries only is that we have not been able to locate data for some other countries. Table 3.1: Cableways Accidents in France No. of passengers (million) No. of accidents resulting in serious injury 2002-3 2003-4 2004-5 2005-6 2006-7 2007-8 2008-9 2009-10 2010-11 729 737 702 677 532 692 761 666 665 15 16 15 18 13 20 14 23 19 Page 58
Risk & Policy Analysts Table 3.1: Cableways Accidents in France No. of seriously injured people 2002-3 2003-4 2004-5 2005-6 2006-7 2007-8 2008-9 2009-10 2010-11 n/a 16 15 18 14 19 14 23 18 No. of fatalities n/a 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 Sources: Domaines Skiables de France (nd) ; STRMTG (2012) As can be seen from the data on France: statistics are not available prior to the Directive to allow for a robust comparison covering a longer time-series; and as noted in the report (Domaines Skiables de France, nd), accidents are more often associated with passenger behaviour than equipment or installation failure. Additional information on accidents was provided by consultation carried out for this study. This information indicates that: Hungary has not experienced any incidents, accidents or serious incidents on cableways subject to the Cableways Directive since July 2011; Lithuania has not had any cableway incidents/accidents over the past decade; Luxembourg only has one cableway which was built in accordance with Directive 2000/9/EC in 2003 and no accidents on this installation are known to the authorities. This installation replaced a cableway from the 1950s after a serious accident; over the past decade, Poland does not appear to have experienced any fatalities or serious accidents resulting from the technical failure or inappropriate maintenance of cableways; Portugal has experienced no serious accidents or incidents since 2004; Romania has not experienced any accidents on cableway installations designed to carry persons over the past 10 years but has had three incidents on fixed grip chairlifts which resulted from a technical malfunction; information on incidents/accidents in Slovakia since 2003 suggests that these may primarily occur due to passenger behaviour; and unofficial data for Spain suggest that between 1 November 2009 and 31 October 2010 there were eight incidents involving cableways in Spain (seven incidents involved chairlifts and one involved a draglift). As a result of these incidents there were 16 minor injuries, 1 serious injury but no fatalities. Statistics for the following year (1 November 2010 – 31 October 2011) are similar with nine incidents occurring during this period. Of these incidents eight involved chairlifts Page 59
Page 1:
Ref. Ares(2012)1245393 - 22/10/2012
Page 4 and 5:
DISCLAIMER While RPA considers that
Page 6 and 7:
Executive Summary market. In additi
Page 8 and 9:
Executive Summary Page iv
Page 10 and 11:
Table of Contents 4. OPTIONS FOR RE
Page 13 and 14:
Risk & Policy Analysts 1. INTRODUCT
Page 15 and 16:
Risk & Policy Analysts 2. MARKET SI
Page 17 and 18:
Risk & Policy Analysts Figure 2.1:
Page 19 and 20: Risk & Policy Analysts Austria Acco
Page 21 and 22: Risk & Policy Analysts It is of not
Page 23 and 24: Risk & Policy Analysts Western Euro
Page 25 and 26: Risk & Policy Analysts Japan The sk
Page 27 and 28: Risk & Policy Analysts Table 2.12:
Page 33 and 34: Risk & Policy Analysts SME). Taken
Page 35 and 36: Risk & Policy Analysts The industry
Page 37 and 38: Risk & Policy Analysts From the dat
Page 39 and 40: Risk & Policy Analysts SMEs In gene
Page 41 and 42: Risk & Policy Analysts of ski equip
Page 43 and 44: Risk & Policy Analysts Figure 2.6:
Page 47 and 48: Risk & Policy Analysts noted that u
Page 49 and 50: Risk & Policy Analysts cableways ma
Page 55 and 56: Risk & Policy Analysts There are al
Page 57 and 58: Risk & Policy Analysts operation of
Page 59 and 60: Risk & Policy Analysts Other factor
Page 61 and 62: Risk & Policy Analysts Changes in P
Page 65 and 66: Risk & Policy Analysts From Table 2
Page 67 and 68: Risk & Policy Analysts Price Change
Page 69: Risk & Policy Analysts 2.6.4 Summar
Page 73 and 74: Risk & Policy Analysts 3.3 Impacts
Page 75 and 76: Risk & Policy Analysts 3.3.4 Impact
Page 77 and 78: Risk & Policy Analysts 4. OPTIONS F
Page 79 and 80: Risk & Policy Analysts Box 4.1: The
Page 81 and 82: Risk & Policy Analysts The details
Page 83 and 84: Risk & Policy Analysts Overall, sta
Page 85 and 86: Risk & Policy Analysts Option 2 (
Page 87 and 88: Risk & Policy Analysts subject to E
Page 93 and 94: Risk & Policy Analysts out in Table
Page 95 and 96: Risk & Policy Analysts Table 5.2: K
Page 97 and 98: Risk & Policy Analysts One example
Page 99 and 100: Risk & Policy Analysts At least two
Page 101 and 102: Risk & Policy Analysts Option A3 (R
Page 103 and 104: Risk & Policy Analysts The cost of
Page 105 and 106: Risk & Policy Analysts requirements
Page 107 and 108: Risk & Policy Analysts may come to
Page 109 and 110: Risk & Policy Analysts Operating Co
Page 111 and 112: Risk & Policy Analysts Innovation a
Page 113 and 114: Risk & Policy Analysts To this end,
Page 115 and 116: Risk & Policy Analysts respondents
Page 117 and 118: Risk & Policy Analysts Innovation a
Page 119 and 120: Risk & Policy Analysts Summary of S
Page 121 and 122:
Risk & Policy Analysts Public Autho
Page 123 and 124:
Risk & Policy Analysts Is the cab
Page 125 and 126:
Risk & Policy Analysts Impact on Co
Page 127 and 128:
Risk & Policy Analysts Option F3:
Page 129 and 130:
Risk & Policy Analysts However, the
Page 131 and 132:
Risk & Policy Analysts 5.3.7 Proble
Page 133 and 134:
Risk & Policy Analysts Public Healt
Page 135 and 136:
Risk & Policy Analysts 6.2 Problem
Page 137 and 138:
Risk & Policy Analysts 6.6 Problem
Page 139 and 140:
Risk & Policy Analysts Commision de
Page 141 and 142:
Risk & Policy Analysts Kaiser (nd):
Page 143 and 144:
Risk & Policy Analysts STRMTG (2012
Page 145 and 146:
Risk & Policy Analysts ANNEX 1 Over
Page 147 and 148:
Risk & Policy Analysts A1. CONSULTA
Page 149 and 150:
Risk & Policy Analysts feedback was
Page 151 and 152:
Risk & Policy Analysts ANNEX 2 Revi
Page 153 and 154:
Risk & Policy Analysts B2. REVIEW O
Page 155 and 156:
Risk & Policy Analysts Table B2.2:
Page 157 and 158:
Page 159 and 160:
Page 161 and 162:
Page 163 and 164:
Page 165 and 166:
Page 167 and 168:
Page 169:
Risk & Policy Analysts the NLF, imp
show all

Cableways Impact Assessment Study - Final Report - saferail.nl

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

Delete template?

Save as template?