66. The World Forum noted that the Working Party on Road Safety (WP.1) had considered [the alignment of the provisions of the 1968 Vienna Convention with those of vehicle regulations adopted by the World Forum in the framework of the 1958 and 1998 Agreements] at its March 2010 session (see the report ECE/TRAN/WP.1/127, paras. 34–42).

WP.29 noted that WP.1 had decided to create a small group of experts to prepare a proposal for amendments to the Convention including a clarification of what is meant by “the permanent control of the vehicle by the driver” within articles 8 and 13 of the Convention.

It was also noted that WP.1 had decided to start an amendment process to the Convention, for example, by including a general clause indicating that vehicles that have been type approved in conformity with the Regulations annexed to the 1958 Agreement shall be deemed to be in conformity with the object of Annex 5 of the Convention, provided that those Regulations do not contradict the principles of the Convention (see para. 38 of the WP.1 report).

The Secretary of WP.1 confirmed that this amendment would be considered by WP.1 at its September 2010 session and that the corresponding proposal would be available at the WP.1 website (http://www.unece.org/trans/roadsafe/wp1rep.html). She invited the government delegates of WP.29 and WP.1 to cooperate on a national level to avoid any future inconsistency between the legal instruments. Finally, she asked for the participation and cooperation of experts from WP.29 in the above-mentioned group of experts of WP.1.

67. WP.29 recalled that an informal group of GRE had been set up to identify conflicting provisions between UNECE Regulations and the 1968 Vienna Convention (see para. 27 above) and to cooperate with WP.1. The representative of the United Kingdom pointed out that the most difficult issues could arise from the rapid advances in technology in the areas of vehicle control and dynamic performance envisaged into the vehicle Regulations that might conflict with a strict interpretation of the provision of the Convention requesting a permanent control of the vehicle by the driver. He stressed that such provisions were essential for the improvement of vehicle safety.

68. WP.29 agreed to reconsider this matter at its November 2010 session on the basis of the outcome of the next meeting of WP.1.