22. The expert from the Republic of Korea, jointly with the experts from Japan and EC prepared a presentation (GRSP-58-30) on a proposal to introduce provisions on Safety-Belt Reminders (SBRs) in all vehicle seats (GRSP-58-29-Rev.1 superseding ECE/TRANS/WP.29/GRSP/2015/19). He mentioned the cost benefit analysis carried out by EC and stated that the benefits outweighed costs in Asian countries (available at http://ec.europa.eu/DocsRoom/documents/6662/attachments/1/translations/en/renditions/pdf). He added that SBRs had great lifesaving potential, and that from safety-belt use data, it was clear that enforcement was not equal in all countries and may depend on the priorities of the police forces and public protection organisms. He concluded that the use of SBRs, would be an added value. The expert from OICA argued that there was no evidence from cost benefit analyses that SBR devices were effective in increasing the use of safety belts. He also questioned the need of SBRs in commercial vehicles, where the transportation rate of passengers was very low. The expert from Denmark strongly supported the proposal. However, he questioned the need for an activation time on the device. The expert from France supported in principle the proposal, however, he also underlined the need to avoid any misinterpretation in the type approval procedure of these devices and requested a study reservation on the proposal. The expert from the United Kingdom supported, in principle, the intention. However, he argued that a high percentage of vehicle occupants already wore safety belts in his country and he, thus, questioned how much value added could be provided by a mandatory installation of SBRs. Finally, he requested a time reservation to study the proposal in detail. The expert from Germany underlined the need for a practical solution and that the mandatory installation of SBR would increase vehicle prices. He also proposed differing approaches for vehicle categories, and questioned the need in the N2/N3 or in the M2/M3 category, where the crew were responsible for fastening the safety belts of occupants. The expert from EC stated that the rate of use was very low in some European countries while the voluntary fitting of SBRs by manufacturers was very high. He also stated that cheap cars without SBRs were sold in European low income countries where the rate of safety belt use was very low.

23. Finally GRSP agreed to establish a task force led by Japan, the Republic of Korea and EC to submit a revised proposal at its May 2016 session. In the meantime, the secretariat was requested to distribute GRSP-58-29-Rev.1 with an official symbol at the next GRSP session.

22. The expert from the Republic of Korea, jointly with the experts from Japan and EC prepared a presentation (GRSP-58-30) on a proposal to introduce provisions on Safety-Belt Reminders (SBRs) in all vehicle seats (GRSP-58-29-Rev.1 superseding ECE/TRANS/WP.29/GRSP/2015/19). He mentioned the cost benefit analysis carried out by EC and stated that the benefits outweighed costs in Asian countries (available at http://ec.europa.eu/DocsRoom/documents/6662/attachments/1/translations/en/renditions/pdf). He added that SBRs had great lifesaving potential, and that from safety-belt use data, it was clear that enforcement was not equal in all countries and may depend on the priorities of the police forces and public protection organisms. He concluded that the use of SBRs, would be an added value. The expert from OICA argued that there was no evidence from cost benefit analyses that SBR devices were effective in increasing the use of safety belts. He also questioned the need of SBRs in commercial vehicles, where the transportation rate of passengers was very low. The expert from Denmark strongly supported the proposal. However, he questioned the need for an activation time on the device. The expert from France supported in principle the proposal, however, he also underlined the need to avoid any misinterpretation in the type approval procedure of these devices and requested a study reservation on the proposal. The expert from the United Kingdom supported, in principle, the intention. However, he argued that a high percentage of vehicle occupants already wore safety belts in his country and he, thus, questioned how much value added could be provided by a mandatory installation of SBRs. Finally, he requested a time reservation to study the proposal in detail. The expert from Germany underlined the need for a practical solution and that the mandatory installation of SBR would increase vehicle prices. He also proposed differing approaches for vehicle categories, and questioned the need in the N2/N3 or in the M2/M3 category, where the crew were responsible for fastening the safety belts of occupants. The expert from EC stated that the rate of use was very low in some European countries while the voluntary fitting of SBRs by manufacturers was very high. He also stated that cheap cars without SBRs were sold in European low income countries where the rate of safety belt use was very low.

23. Finally GRSP agreed to establish a task force led by Japan, the Republic of Korea and EC to submit a revised proposal at its May 2016 session. In the meantime, the secretariat was requested to distribute GRSP-58-29-Rev.1 with an official symbol at the next GRSP session.

22. The expert from the Republic of Korea, jointly with the experts from Japan and EC prepared a presentation (GRSP-58-30) on a proposal to introduce provisions on Safety-Belt Reminders (SBRs) in all vehicle seats (GRSP-58-29-Rev.1 superseding ECE/TRANS/WP.29/GRSP/2015/19). He mentioned the cost benefit analysis carried out by EC and stated that the benefits outweighed costs in Asian countries (available at http://ec.europa.eu/DocsRoom/documents/6662/attachments/1/translations/en/renditions/pdf). He added that SBRs had great lifesaving potential, and that from safety-belt use data, it was clear that enforcement was not equal in all countries and may depend on the priorities of the police forces and public protection organisms. He concluded that the use of SBRs, would be an added value. The expert from OICA argued that there was no evidence from cost benefit analyses that SBR devices were effective in increasing the use of safety belts. He also questioned the need of SBRs in commercial vehicles, where the transportation rate of passengers was very low. The expert from Denmark strongly supported the proposal. However, he questioned the need for an activation time on the device. The expert from France supported in principle the proposal, however, he also underlined the need to avoid any misinterpretation in the type approval procedure of these devices and requested a study reservation on the proposal. The expert from the United Kingdom supported, in principle, the intention. However, he argued that a high percentage of vehicle occupants already wore safety belts in his country and he, thus, questioned how much value added could be provided by a mandatory installation of SBRs. Finally, he requested a time reservation to study the proposal in detail. The expert from Germany underlined the need for a practical solution and that the mandatory installation of SBR would increase vehicle prices. He also proposed differing approaches for vehicle categories, and questioned the need in the N2/N3 or in the M2/M3 category, where the crew were responsible for fastening the safety belts of occupants. The expert from EC stated that the rate of use was very low in some European countries while the voluntary fitting of SBRs by manufacturers was very high. He also stated that cheap cars without SBRs were sold in European low income countries where the rate of safety belt use was very low.

23. Finally GRSP agreed to establish a task force led by Japan, the Republic of Korea and EC to submit a revised proposal at its May 2016 session. In the meantime, the secretariat was requested to distribute GRSP-58-29-Rev.1 with an official symbol at the next GRSP session.