Traduction de «Groupe d'étude sur la conduite en état d'ébriété » (Français → Anglais) :

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 non-availability 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] |

In any event, a deferral shall be granted when it is appropriate to conduct studies in adults prior to initiating studies in the paediatric population or when studies in the paediatric population will take longer to conduct than studies in adults.

A National Highway Traffic Safety Association study showed that a driver would be able to drive drunk between 200 and 2,000 times before being picked up just once and that the majority of those being arrested for driving drunk have been doing it four or five times a week for several years before being arrested.

Stresses that in some cases the Directive’s flexibility has allowed many Member States to embark on energy efficiency measures, and believes this flexibility in alternative measures is crucial for Member States to implement energy efficiency programmes and projects in the future; demands that the loopholes in the existing Directive which are responsible for underachievement of the Directive, especially in Article 7, be removed while keeping adequate flexibility for the Member States to choose among the measures; notes that the EPRS study on the implementation of Article 7 , which is based on figures notified by the Member States, comes ...[+++] to the conclusion that measures such as allowing Member States to phase in the target, to take early actions into account or to exempt the transport and ETS sectors from the calculation of their target have in almost all cases led to an annual overall energy saving target of only half (0,75 %); notes that the authors have declared that the analysis can only be as good as the data provided; insists that alternative measures under Article 7(9) must be better defined and should be easily quantifiable.

The U.S. transportation research board has suggested a tough crackdown on repeat drunk drivers which would include impounding vehicles and police stake outs of people convicted of DUI. The board's committee said current policies in Canada have been effective in discouraging most people from drinking and driving, but there remains a group of persistent drinking drivers who do not appear to be deterred by the threat of social disapp ...[+++]roval or legal punishment (1820 ) According to the report, repeat offenders are four times more likely than other drivers to take part in a fatal traffic accident.

On the other hand, officials argue, if the penalties contained in the impaired driving offence were to apply to clause 1.1, the clause risks being struck down as unconstitutional, given the lack of nexus between drug possession and impairment, as well as the overly severe impaired driving penalty for a simple possession offence.