GRB/2018/8
Proposal for a draft Resolution on road surface labelling
Downloads
UNECE server
Related documents
18. The expert from the Netherlands presented a draft Resolution on Road Surface Labelling and background documents (ECE/TRANS/WP.29/GRB/2018/8, ECE/TRANS/WP.29/GRB/2018/9, GRB-68-08-Rev.1, GRB-68-29). Various experts expressed concerns that the substance of the proposed resolution goes beyond the scope of GRB and WP.29. They also pointed out potential difficulties in the possible implementation of the resolution at the national level, due to the fact that road pavements normally fall within the competence of a separate governmental agency which is not responsible for road vehicles. The expert from ETRTO commented on the draft resolution and pointed out that he would need more background information to evaluate the proposal (GRB-68-11). He also called for establishing a joint task force with the participation of the road construction industry.
19. Given the above comments, GRB was of the view that it would be premature to adopt the draft Resolution at this session and advocated the idea of consulting the road construction industry and establishing a task force which would report back to GRB. GRB noted that the Netherlands might not be in a position to lead such a taskforce. The Chair pointed out his intention to seek the views of the Administrative Committee for the Coordination of Work (AC.2) and/or WP.29 on the scope of the draft resolution. Finally, GRB decided to review this subject at the next session and noted that the expert of the Netherlands, with the assistance of the expert from the Russian Federation, would slightly redraft the text of the resolution.
18. The expert from the Netherlands presented a draft Resolution on Road Surface Labelling and background documents (ECE/TRANS/WP.29/GRB/2018/8, ECE/TRANS/WP.29/GRB/2018/9, GRB-68-08-Rev.1, GRB-68-29). Various experts expressed concerns that the substance of the proposed resolution goes beyond the scope of GRB and WP.29. They also pointed out potential difficulties in the possible implementation of the resolution at the national level, due to the fact that road pavements normally fall within the competence of a separate governmental agency which is not responsible for road vehicles. The expert from ETRTO commented on the draft resolution and pointed out that he would need more background information to evaluate the proposal (GRB-68-11). He also called for establishing a joint task force with the participation of the road construction industry.
19. Given the above comments, GRB was of the view that it would be premature to adopt the draft Resolution at this session and advocated the idea of consulting the road construction industry and establishing a task force which would report back to GRB. GRB noted that the Netherlands might not be in a position to lead such a taskforce. The Chair pointed out his intention to seek the views of the Administrative Committee for the Coordination of Work (AC.2) and/or WP.29 on the scope of the draft resolution. Finally, GRB decided to review this subject at the next session and noted that the expert of the Netherlands, with the assistance of the expert from the Russian Federation, would slightly redraft the text of the resolution.
18. The expert from the Netherlands presented a draft Resolution on Road Surface Labelling and background documents (ECE/TRANS/WP.29/GRB/2018/8, ECE/TRANS/WP.29/GRB/2018/9, GRB-68-08-Rev.1, GRB-68-29). Various experts expressed concerns that the substance of the proposed resolution goes beyond the scope of GRB and WP.29. They also pointed out potential difficulties in the possible implementation of the resolution at the national level, due to the fact that road pavements normally fall within the competence of a separate governmental agency which is not responsible for road vehicles. The expert from ETRTO commented on the draft resolution and pointed out that he would need more background information to evaluate the proposal (GRB-68-11). He also called for establishing a joint task force with the participation of the road construction industry.
19. Given the above comments, GRB was of the view that it would be premature to adopt the draft Resolution at this session and advocated the idea of consulting the road construction industry and establishing a task force which would report back to GRB. GRB noted that the Netherlands might not be in a position to lead such a taskforce. The Chair pointed out his intention to seek the views of the Administrative Committee for the Coordination of Work (AC.2) and/or WP.29 on the scope of the draft resolution. Finally, GRB decided to review this subject at the next session and noted that the expert of the Netherlands, with the assistance of the expert from the Russian Federation, would slightly redraft the text of the resolution.
18. The expert from the Netherlands presented a draft Resolution on Road Surface Labelling and background documents (ECE/TRANS/WP.29/GRB/2018/8, ECE/TRANS/WP.29/GRB/2018/9, GRB-68-08-Rev.1, GRB-68-29). Various experts expressed concerns that the substance of the proposed resolution goes beyond the scope of GRB and WP.29. They also pointed out potential difficulties in the possible implementation of the resolution at the national level, due to the fact that road pavements normally fall within the competence of a separate governmental agency which is not responsible for road vehicles. The expert from ETRTO commented on the draft resolution and pointed out that he would need more background information to evaluate the proposal (GRB-68-11). He also called for establishing a joint task force with the participation of the road construction industry.
19. Given the above comments, GRB was of the view that it would be premature to adopt the draft Resolution at this session and advocated the idea of consulting the road construction industry and establishing a task force which would report back to GRB. GRB noted that the Netherlands might not be in a position to lead such a taskforce. The Chair pointed out his intention to seek the views of the Administrative Committee for the Coordination of Work (AC.2) and/or WP.29 on the scope of the draft resolution. Finally, GRB decided to review this subject at the next session and noted that the expert of the Netherlands, with the assistance of the expert from the Russian Federation, would slightly redraft the text of the resolution.
18. The expert from the Netherlands presented a draft Resolution on Road Surface Labelling and background documents (ECE/TRANS/WP.29/GRB/2018/8, ECE/TRANS/WP.29/GRB/2018/9, GRB-68-08-Rev.1, GRB-68-29). Various experts expressed concerns that the substance of the proposed resolution goes beyond the scope of GRB and WP.29. They also pointed out potential difficulties in the possible implementation of the resolution at the national level, due to the fact that road pavements normally fall within the competence of a separate governmental agency which is not responsible for road vehicles. The expert from ETRTO commented on the draft resolution and pointed out that he would need more background information to evaluate the proposal (GRB-68-11). He also called for establishing a joint task force with the participation of the road construction industry.
19. Given the above comments, GRB was of the view that it would be premature to adopt the draft Resolution at this session and advocated the idea of consulting the road construction industry and establishing a task force which would report back to GRB. GRB noted that the Netherlands might not be in a position to lead such a taskforce. The Chair pointed out his intention to seek the views of the Administrative Committee for the Coordination of Work (AC.2) and/or WP.29 on the scope of the draft resolution. Finally, GRB decided to review this subject at the next session and noted that the expert of the Netherlands, with the assistance of the expert from the Russian Federation, would slightly redraft the text of the resolution.
28. The expert from the Netherlands presented a revised draft Resolution on Road Surface Labelling (ECE/TRANS/WP.29/GRB/2019/2) and requested that it should be published as a reference document on the GRB website. GRB was also informed that WP.29, at its November 2018 session, had encouraged GRB to consult the road construction industry, to continue work on the draft Resolution and to report back to WP.29 in due course (ECE/TRANS/WP.29/1142, para. 69). The Vice-Chair proposed to solicit views on the document of the national road authorities. To this end, GRB invited all experts to consult their national road administrations and send feedback to the Vice-Chair who volunteered to consolidate the replies and report back to GRB at its next session.
37. The representative from the Russian Federation introduced GRPE-79-07 raising awareness of non-exhaust particulate emissions from brake, tyre and road abrasion. The Chair highlighted the topic was in the agenda of IWG on PMP, highlighting the relevance of the topic. He also mentioned GRBP was considering a proposal from Netherlands on road surface labelling that included traffic noise reduction, wet skid resistance, rolling resistance and lifespan (ECE/TRANS/WP.29/GRB/2019/2).
23. The expert from the Russian Federation reported on the feedback from GRBP experts on the Draft Resolution on Road Surface Labelling (GRBP-70-11). He indicated that replies had been received from Austria, Finland, France, Norway, Russian Federation, Switzerland and the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland. According to the expert, the main conclusions of the survey were as follows: