Road safety

Ann-Sofie Lifvenhage (M)

Madam Speaker! All questions handled by the House of Parliament are of great importance for us citizens and for our country's development in large and small matters. But as we stand here today, it is not just about an important question, but about a question of life and death.

When I, who was born in the middle of the 70s, was little, there weren't that many children's programs on TV. But what made the biggest impression and which shaped how I took responsibility out in traffic throughout my entire upbringing was Olyckan, that is, Ted Åström disguised as a malicious, super-scary and bandaged accident-hunter with a bicycle tire for a head who sang: "Watch out for me, otherwise something will happen." And which I did watch out for.

TU13 on road safety touches many parts and aspects of the broad area such as cars, bicycles, pedestrians, electric scooter riders, professional drivers, driving license rules, wildlife accidents and so little time adjustment. The list is long. It is about people's lives and safety, and it is positive to be able to state that despite a strong population increase and more cars, trucks, buses, A-tractors and EU-mopeds, technological development and road safety work have, among other things, contributed to the number of those killed in traffic over the last 15 years decreasing by 37 percent.

Sweden is a pioneer when it comes to road safety. Ambitious, systematic and preventive work is being carried out to increase road safety. It shows that the development over time is moving in the right direction, but that we still have much left to do to reach the goal that no one should be seriously injured or lose their life in traffic.

Madam Speaker! During the first four months of this year, 58 people have lost their lives in traffic accidents, Transportstyrelsen reports. However, not all of these accidents have to do with what we usually mean when we talk about road safety. Unfortunately, there are people who choose to end their lives with the help of various means of transport. Mental ill-health is one of the most important social problems we have to deal with, and even though such measures are not included in the report today, this affects the statistics for road safety. This means that drivers of both trains and heavier vehicles can involuntarily become part of an incident where another person has made the decision to end their life in traffic. At home, this means that when the husband's pager rings for a call-out with the rescue service, it may very well involve the macabre task of picking up the parts of the one who chose suicide as the only way out.

In order for us to reach the goal of zero injured and deceased in traffic, these issues must be highlighted. Mental ill-health is among us, all the time. Even if no one can do everything, we are very many who can do something.

Madam Speaker! The zero vision for road safety, which was decided by the Riksdag in 1997, means that no one shall be killed or seriously injured as a result of traffic accidents within the road transport sector. We need to continue the work with increased road safety. In that context, I would like to highlight some of many important issues.

Firstly, we need to strengthen the police presence on our roads. Organized crime has deep roots and many branches. Alongside shootings and bombings, areas such as subsidy fraud and thefts are now also important sources of income for criminals. On Swedish roads, a large number of illegal trucks roll, transporting drugs and weapons into the country and stolen goods out of the country. These trucks completely disregard laws linked to rest periods, as well as rules regarding safety and the environment for the vehicles.

In a study by Henrik Sternberg, assistant professor and logistics researcher at Iowa State University in the USA, the picture is confirmed that extensive cheating occurs within the freight traffic on Swedish roads. This means at least 300 million SEK in lost tax revenue. It also means that Swedish trucking companies find it harder to survive and that the environment becomes worse and there is a greater opportunity for organized crime to transport goods.

Secondly, there are a number of things to investigate for increased security, for example alcohol bombs in all our ports, mandatory GPS upon entry and exit, and significantly more drug checks on the road. We should also consider whether more cars should have alcohol locks.

Thirdly, we should speed up the fortification of Swedish roads and also the expansion of two-plus-one roads and road barriers. The government has, during its eight months in power, already shifted the policy for infrastructure. Social utility will be guiding. This means that resources are released for better and safer roads. Furthermore, the government is allocating significant resources to the justice system as a whole, which among other things provides the opportunity to combat crime, even on the road. This collectively provides long-term tools to further strengthen security.

A task that is already pending and where it is of the utmost importance that it is completed is the management of unattended railway crossings where a red light means the train is approaching and a green light means it is clear to proceed. Such a crossing resulted in an unpleasant accident in Nyköping a few weeks ago. When Per Andersson and colleagues from Sörmlandskusten's rescue service were alerted, they were met by a vehicle with youths who had been hit by a passenger train at a level crossing without barriers.

Trafikverket has been tasked with removing these hazards, and it is an important task to reduce the risk of accidents.

Madam Speaker! Sometimes misfortune occurs completely unnecessarily, one might think. Sometimes it is conditions that we can influence through regulatory changes, provisions, changed directives, controls, or technological development. But many times it is actually up to each individual - how we teach our children to handle traffic, how we ourselves respect rules and our fellow road users, how we feel and respect professional groups who have their daily workplace in traffic, but also many times ultimately how we take responsibility for how we ourselves behave and are seen.

Madam Speaker! In the report, there are a number of proposed measures where we are now working further at the community level to reach the goal that no one should be seriously injured or lose their life in traffic. The safety in A-tractors – seat belts, one person per seat, and winter tires in the winter – is such an important part for the freedom-creating A-tractor to be able to continue being an important means of transport for our young people out in the countryside.

In conclusion, I want to urge consideration, respect, and personal responsibility in traffic, as well as for all of us to acquire and use the cheapest life insurance that exists while we now enjoy lovely summer evenings and long-awaited evening walks: a reflective vest. If you are seen, you exist - that way we keep Misfortune at bay!

With this, I vote in favor of the committee's proposal in the report and wish both the Speaker and the members and colleagues in the Transport Committee a pleasant and long-awaited summer when the time soon comes.

(Applause)

(ANDRE VICE TALMANNEN: Thank you very much! I wish you the same.)

The speech at riksdagen.se, in Swedish (opens in a new tab)

Carina Ödebrink (S)

Madam Speaker! We are now debating and will later decide on the committee report on Road Safety, which contains 110 motions from the general motion period.

We Social Democrats have two reservations. We stand behind both of these, but to save time, we move for approval only of reservation 10 regarding traffic safety during roadworks and rescue operations.

Now it may seem as if Ann-Sofie Lifvenhage and I have talked ourselves into a corner. That is not the case, but I intend to continue on the theme of children. I am a little older than Ann-Sofie Lifvenhage. I was born during the era of the houndstooth-patterned car helmet, if anyone remembers it. It was part of the traffic safety work of the 60s. Sometimes everyone in the car was provided with the characteristic helmet, but often it was perhaps only the driver. The law on seat belts did not yet exist, and the children—me and my sister—could sit or lie however we wanted in the back seat. Not until 1975 did the law on seat belts in the front seat come, and the seat belt requirement for children in the back seat did not come until 1988. If one was unlucky, the adults could also sit and smoke in the front seat. Since then, thankfully, much has changed.

The long-term goal for road safety means that no one shall be killed or seriously injured as a result of accidents within the road transport sector. This was decided by the Riksdag in 1997. The systematic work to improve road safety has yielded results. During the period 2007-2020, the number of fatalities has more than halved despite increased traffic and an increased population.

In 2016, a new start was launched for the continued road safety work, which shall apply to all types of traffic. In 2020, the government decided on a new milestone to accelerate the zero vision. This means a halving of the number of those killed as a result of traffic accidents in all types of traffic by 2030, compared with the average number of killed during the years 2017-2019.

The development with fewer fatalities and seriously injured is moving in a positive direction. But the number of fatal accidents must begin to decrease in the coming years if we are to reach the milestone goal for 2030.

Road safety involves a broad scope of work regarding planning and maintenance of, and investments in, infrastructure and transport systems. That the different modes of transport are used in the best way—for example, by moving more freight from road to rail so that the number of trucks on the roads is reduced—is also a road safety issue, as well as fair conditions for those who work in the transport industry. Furthermore, it concerns speed limits, controls, zero tolerance for alcohol and drugs in traffic, and much more.

Mr. Speaker, road safety is also about equality.

Women have poorer protection in traffic accidents compared to men. For example, we women run a greater risk of suffering whip-lash injuries because our necks are protected only half as well as men's.

The State Road and Transport Research Institute presented in May the first female crash test dummy, which in height and weight is intended to represent the average woman. The work with the crash test dummy has garnered great international interest and is an important part of reaching the goal that women shall have the same protection as men in a collision.

The number of A-tractors has increased sharply in recent years and more than doubled since 2019, according to Trafikanalys statistics. It is primarily young people between 15 and 17 years old who use A-tractors to get to and from school and leisure activities. But young people with A-tractors have actually also become attractive as summer workers, among other things in home care.

In line with an increased number of vehicles, accidents have also increased. Therefore, both the previous and current governments have worked to increase road safety. Requirements for winter tires have been introduced, and from August 31, additional requirements regarding the number of passengers and seat belts will come into effect. The maximum permitted speed is, however, still 30 kilometers per hour. Changes regarding speed may become relevant later, according to the investigation that Trafikanalys has conducted, but it is important that the other measures are implemented first. The important thing is that we embrace the youth's need for freedom and mobility while we work hard to increase road safety.

Madam Speaker! To combat fatal accidents at work, the Social Democratic-led government tasked Trafikverket with developing and implementing an action plan for increased safety in and around roadworks.

Even though road safety and protection at roadworks or accidents has increased, there are still far too many road users who show a lack of consideration. No one should have to risk their life in their important work when working on and at our roads.

The action plan contains twelve activities, where measures for improved speed compliance in connection with locations where work is ongoing shall be included as a central part.

The action plan was presented to the government in December 2022. The implementation of the measures in the action plan shall be reported to the government no later than during 2025 and in Trafikverket's upcoming annual reports.

To continue reducing the number of deaths and injuries in traffic and to reduce the number of workplace accidents, we move for approval of our reservation. We want the government to continue prioritizing this important issue and that the Swedish Transport Administration's work with the action plan is carried to completion.

In conclusion, Madam Speaker, I would like to extend a warm thank you to the transport committee's administrative staff. I would like to wish you and all colleagues in the committee a very pleasant, calm, and accident-free summer.

(Applause)

The speech at riksdagen.se, in Swedish (opens in a new tab)

Magnus Oscarsson (KD)

Madam Speaker! Today we are debating the Committee on Transport's report on road safety. I would like to begin by moving to approve the committee's proposal.

That we have traffic-safe roads in the country is extremely important, and Trafikverket's work with a zero vision has saved many lives. Sweden is a pioneer country when it comes to traffic safety, and the Swedish traffic safety work is successful. Ambitious, systematic, and preventive work has been carried out for increased traffic safety, and it has resulted in fewer fatalities in traffic.

It is however worrying that the accident figures in road traffic are back at the levels before the pandemic. We need to continue working with road safety to achieve the zero vision.

Unfortunately, we know that with deferred maintenance, our roads also end up in poorer condition. Patching and repairing is something that characterizes Trafikverket's measures. To keep the road network functioning, Trafikverket prioritizes measures that have an effect in the short term – for example, repairing cracks or holes in the asphalt instead of rebuilding the road body, whose substructure is many times in such poor condition that it crumbles away. When Trafikverket repairs the asphalt with emergency remedial maintenance, the road holds up for a while longer. It ensures the safety of road users, but it happens with the knowledge that the asphalt will soon need to be repaired again. It becomes more expensive in the long run, and it causes more disruptions for passenger and freight traffic.

Madam Speaker! What the previous government left behind was a gigantic maintenance debt. If you travel on the roads in Sweden, you can see that certain roads are in extremely poor condition. An analysis that Transportföretagen recently produced shows that every tenth state road is in very poor condition. They do not meet the standards.

I am pleased that we now have a government that takes these tasks seriously. In the first budget that was prepared, 1 billion was allocated to road maintenance and traffic safety-enhancing measures. The debt is large, but now we are beginning to chip away at it to achieve a robust road network throughout the country. With the zero vision as a starting point, the road network is built and maintained so that the highest possible traffic safety can be achieved.

Madam Speaker! The E-tractor or A-tractor is a major issue for many of the country's youths, in order to be able to get to school when the bus stops running where it used to go or to get around in their free time.

For the new government, the A-traktor is important to defend in the EU. It considers that the rules for the A-traktor should be designed in Sweden based on Swedish conditions.

We do, however, know that several very serious accidents involving A-tractors have unfortunately occurred. Therefore, the government made decisions on several new rules as recently as June 8.

The new rules mean that those traveling in an A-traktor shall use a seat belt and that there shall be only one person in each passenger seat. The government has previously proceeded with Transportstyrelsen's proposal that A-traktors driven during the winter shall have winter tires. The new rules are important to guarantee Swedish youths' opportunity to travel safely in an A-traktor, but they should have been introduced a long time ago.

The speech at riksdagen.se, in Swedish (opens in a new tab)

Linda W Snecker (V)

Madam Speaker! Last year, Magnus Oscarsson's colleague Magnus Jacobsson submitted an excellent motion, a motion that has been submitted to the Committee on Transport several times. It concerns mandatory eye examinations in connection with driver's license renewal.

When one is to renew their driving license, a new eye examination should be carried out at the time when it is most needed based on evidence, so that eye examinations are performed not only before one obtains the driving license but repeatedly throughout life.

Jacobsson argues that regular eye examinations promote road safety, strengthen the health of individuals, and facilitate that the correct care is provided in good time.

This is something that the transport committee agreed on last year - or rather, the Sverigedemokraterna, Centerpartiet, and Liberalerna were completely in agreement to support the Kristdemokraterna's motion on vision tests.

But now that the Christian Democrats are in the government and hold the position of Minister for Infrastructure and are responsible for traffic safety, they choose not to support the motion from Magnus Jacobsson, which I think is regrettable. It would, in fact, be very good to introduce vision tests at the time of driver's license renewal.

My question is therefore: Why do the Christian Democrats not support their own policy?

The speech at riksdagen.se, in Swedish (opens in a new tab)

Magnus Oscarsson (KD)

Madam Speaker! I thank Member Linda W Snecker for the question. The Member mentioned some parties that were not in favor of the motion. And I did not hear her say that the Left was in favor of the motion. Is it correct that you were not in favor of this motion? It is interesting that it is so.

Since then, it has been customary when it concerns individual motions, and not committee motions, that the parties do not pick up what is stated in them. It does not happen often that the parties pick up such things. We do not have it as practice in our party that something stated in an individual motion becomes the party's policy.

This is something that an individual motioner has written about. Admittedly, it is a very important motion. But, as said, it is not the party's policy that it is about, as Member of Parliament Linda W Snecker says, but this is an individual motion. And I have understood that Member of Parliament Linda W Snecker now supports it.

The answer to the member's question is therefore that it is not customary for us to do so.

The speech at riksdagen.se, in Swedish (opens in a new tab)

Linda W Snecker (V)

Madam Speaker! This will be a very interesting question about the parties' internal lives and how we view our different types of motions – whether it is a party motion, a committee motion, or an individual motion. But no Swedish citizen will be able to follow along if we delve into this issue.

But what I see is that there was a motion from the Christian Democrats with a good proposal that the Christian Democrats in opposition were clearly prepared to fight for and wanted to implement. This is an issue that the Committee on Transport and Communications has worked on for a very long time, before Magnus Oscarsson and I joined the Committee on Transport and Communications.

I think it is regrettable that the government does not look at the policy that has been pursued previously and see what can be done. There is, in fact, work ongoing at the agencies, and investigations are underway to be able to introduce these vision tests because it is something that is needed to increase road safety. Then we, from the political side, must ensure that vision tests work throughout life. We cannot have a situation today where vision is only tested when people are to get their driver's license for the first time but not later in life when we see that so many elderly people are nevertheless involved in accidents that we can be involved in trying to limit.

Madam Speaker! I note that the Christian Democrats have backed down from their policy. Last year and several years before that, they voted for a policy that they wanted to pursue. But now that they are in a governing position, they are backing down completely when it comes to something so incredibly necessary. I think that is a pity.

The speech at riksdagen.se, in Swedish (opens in a new tab)

Magnus Oscarsson (KD)

Madam Speaker! I thank Member Linda W Snecker once again for the question. I agree with the Member that those who watch this debate on TV afterwards will probably not understand exactly what we mean.

But the member says all the time that it is our policy. But it was a member who brought this up, and it is not a proposal that the party is putting forward.

The member did not answer my question, but I thought she previously said that Vänstern did not stand behind this last year but is picking it up now. It is interesting that it is in that way.

But the answer to the question is that this is an important issue. It is not a matter of this. But at the moment, it is an individual motion and then the practice is that the party does not pick it up. I do not know how it is in Vänsterpartiet. The member may well answer that in another reply. But normally, one does not do that.

The speech at riksdagen.se, in Swedish (opens in a new tab)

Daniel Helldén (MP)

Madam Speaker! I have a question for Member Magnus Oscarsson. There was talk about road bodies, which is an interesting concept that the public may not be familiar with, just as is the case with individual motions. But road bodies are that which is a bit further down under the top wear layers and the pavement on a road. It is that which supports the road.

Magnus Oscarsson talks about how these road bodies wear down, that one must do larger maintenance, take care of them and not just do maintenance on the surface and repair the holes in the street. Right now, I cannot remember the term.

When it comes to the issue of maintenance debt and what is being done, the state is currently putting a lot of money into upgrading the roads to meet what is called BK4, that is to say, so that it is possible to drive trucks that are 74 tons heavy. Such trucks can only be driven on a certain road network. However, there are many who enjoy driving on other roads with these trucks, and it wears out the roads enormously. We know from the preliminary research that exists that no matter how you do it, these trucks destroy the roads.

We are now, therefore, spending a lot of money on upgrading bridges and other things to be able to have these heavy trucks while the road surfaces are being destroyed. The potholes, as they are called, are increasing. This is problematic.

I wonder how Member Oscarsson views this. There is a lot of talk about maintenance debt from the government parties, but at the same time, they ensure that the road network is damaged.

The speech at riksdagen.se, in Swedish (opens in a new tab)

Magnus Oscarsson (KD)

Madam Speaker! I thank Daniel Helldén for the question. Potholes, they are called. Many of us have traveled around the country, and it is impossible to avoid seeing that many roads are very poor. It is about this maintenance debt that I and others talk about a lot. As we see it, the previous government has not allocated the money that they should have allocated to refurbish and fix up the roads.

The analysis that I referred to shows that it is primarily in Jämtland, Gävleborg and further north where the worst roads are located. We believe that this is something that must be addressed.

On the question of whether one is allowed to drive with heavier vehicles, experts show that what the member says is not true. The roads will cope just as well with the proposal that is underway. We believe that it is quite important.

When you listen to those who are passionate about the environment, they say that you can load more onto these large trucks and therefore will avoid having to drive with smaller cars. The large trucks can carry a larger load. We therefore believe that this is positive for the whole.

The question of maintenance must be resolved, and then money must be allocated regardless of whether there are heavier vehicles on the roads.

The answer to the member's question is that we do not believe that the roads will deteriorate if there is heavier traffic.

The speech at riksdagen.se, in Swedish (opens in a new tab)

Daniel Helldén (MP)

Madam Speaker! We must ensure that the roads are in good condition. We are talking about road safety here, and it is problematic when there are potholes in the roads. One can get seriously injured as a cyclist, driver, and so on.

But it becomes a bit paradoxical when the government continues to push for having much heavier vehicles. Now, Member Magnus Oscarsson says that the research shows that it is not a problem, but rather that it becomes better with these 74-ton trucks and the upgrading of the roads. But I believe that we all in the Transport Committee have heard that VTI, the Swedish National Road and Transport Research Institute, points out that 74-ton heavy trucks smash the road body itself. The surface is not damaged, but the road body is smashed. This is enormously costly.

What is happening now is that heavy vehicles are driving on routes that, to a much greater extent, should go by rail or with smaller vehicles. They damage the entire road network, and it happens all over the country. It is not only in the places where we today have upgraded to BK4, but it is also the places where these trucks drive even though they are not allowed to drive there, which is even worse. We are getting enormous problems.

The county governor says that the biggest problems are in Jämtland, Gävleborg and so on. One problem there is that climate change has caused there to be greater changes in temperature from below zero to plus degrees, so-called zero-swing. That causes thaw-loosening all at once, and that was not the case before. It has caused the roads there to be damaged to a much greater extent than before.

The combination of all this means that an enormous amount of money will be spent to repair what is caused by the new weights on the vehicles. It is regrettable. I really hope that the government does something about it.

The speech at riksdagen.se, in Swedish (opens in a new tab)

Magnus Oscarsson (KD)

Madam Speaker! I thank Daniel Helldén again for his questions.

I do not see that there is any paradox in what we are saying. On the other hand, I think that what the member is touching upon is a paradox. This is also done for the sake of the environment. By being able to load heavier on the trucks and carry more freight, it becomes better for the environment, because one avoids having to drive multiple times.

It is also impossible to build a railway to every place where trucks are used today. I think this is a complement, and it is good that the road network is being organized. That is exactly what the government is doing.

It is important that we constantly highlight that we want to see improved roads throughout the entire country, not just in certain parts. That is the idea behind this, but it will take time. We understand that this is not a quick fix.

However, it is important to stand firm and say: "This is what we want to change." Then, of course, it will take time. But it is important that we do something so that people feel that we have a new government that wants to make changes.

The speech at riksdagen.se, in Swedish (opens in a new tab)

Patrik Jönsson (SD)

Madam Speaker! We are now debating road safety. But those who so wish can also debate the time change. It may be a bit odd in this block, but that is how it stands.

We in the Sweden Democrats stand behind all our reservations, but in order to gain time, I move for approval of only reservation 11 regarding traffic safety at roadworks and rescue operations.

Madam Speaker! Much has happened regarding traffic safety, both on our roads and in our vehicles. New technology in vehicles and active research work to design vehicles in as crash-safe a way as possible saves lives and reduces the number of injured. Also, the design of roads, clearing of obstacles at the side of the road, and separation of lanes have significantly lowered the risks of traveling in traffic.

Sweden is one of the world's safest countries in traffic, for which we should be grateful, even if we cannot lean back and say that we are satisfied now. In 2022, according to Trafikanalys, 227 people died in road traffic accidents and 1,891 were seriously injured. We are at a continued low level. At the same time, of course, every death or seriously injured person is a tragedy. For cyclists, there is an increasing trend with approximately 2,000 seriously injured per year.

Madam Speaker! Accidents also occur within rail traffic. Something that can nevertheless be considered positive is that during 2022 there was a drastic reduction in the number of fatalities within rail traffic. In 2022, 76 people died compared to 102 the year before. Approximately 85 percent of these were suicides. Without being able to prove it, I believe that the active and extensive work of fencing off track areas with difficult-to-breach lattice fences has yielded results.

The Sweden Democrats have written in their railway committee motion that this work must be further strengthened, and I hope that we have support from all parties in this matter. We must take a firm stand against the extensive track trespassing. Staying in the track area without authorization is associated with life-threatening danger, and it causes major disruptions for train traffic. We want to see a tightening of the penalty for staying in the track area without authorization.

Madam Speaker! Not only does the suicide prevention work need to be strengthened, but also the work of removing railway crossings, especially unguarded railway crossings, for not much has happened here despite a government mandate from the previous government in 2019.

There are approximately 6,500 level crossings in Sweden, and over half of these are unguarded. Trafikverket states that approximately 20 people die annually in level crossing accidents. Trafikverket must get the work started on this issue and follow its government mandate. Perhaps we should set a goal to work towards, for example, that half of the unguarded crossings have either been built away or been equipped with barrier systems by 2035 or 2040 at the latest.

Madam Speaker! It should not be individual motorists' mistakes in a moment of weakness when a railway is crossed that decide life or death. It is not reasonable that vehicle operators should lose their lives because Trafikverket has not taken the issue seriously. In 2018, the government allocated 3 extra billion for building away dangerous unguarded level crossings. But what actually happened with these billions? About thirty of 3,500 have been addressed, and they might have been addressed anyway. Thirty level crossings addressed for 3 billion – calculate that efficiency! It feels as if the billions have mostly gone towards getting more employed administrators at Trafikverket. It is distressing.

Madam Speaker! The Sweden Democrats want to see a return to the speed limits we had before. We believe speed limits should be reasonable, easy to see given the road's condition, and have popular acceptance. The Sweden Democrats argue that a return to the old system with 30, 50, 70, 90, and 110 would be preferable instead of also having 40, 60, 80, and so on. The previous limits were more logical and adapted to reality.

Furthermore, we argue that Sweden, in line with most European countries, which often have 130 or 140 on their motorways, should raise the speed limit on the motorways from 120 to 130. This is suitable for a large part of our fine motorways. Roads with a speed limit of 110 or 120 are our safest roads. Only about 7 percent of the fatal accidents occur there.

Trafikverket should address the maintenance debt and keep the roads in good condition instead of installing signs for reduced speeds to reduce the maintenance of the roads.

Madam Speaker! Reasonable speeds must also apply to A-tractors. Several parties have followed our line of wanting to increase the maximum permitted speed for A-tractors to 45 kilometers per hour. The increase in registered A-tractors has skyrocketed. Between July 2021 and July 2022 alone, over 27 percent more A-tractors were registered.

It is of course positive that our youth get greater freedom to get to different activities or avoid a long wait for a school bus. At the same time, the vehicles create great frustration for many others in traffic, and they create risk situations during overtaking. In particular, heavy vehicles such as trucks and buses can have problems overtaking. Furthermore, the risk for so-called rear-end collisions is great.

With increased speed, the problem becomes smaller, and in cities, these vehicles can follow the rhythm of traffic. But if the speed limit is raised, we Sverigedemokrater assume that better training is introduced, where it can be demonstrated that one also masters driving an A-tractor and not just a two-wheeled moped.

The government has followed our line and now intends to introduce requirements for winter tires and seat belt use, and furthermore, they are limiting the number of passengers in the vehicles. We welcome this. But we stand firm on a high speed. There, we must not yield during the negotiations with the EU regarding the driving license directive. With that said, we also want to tighten the penalty for those who manipulate the speed regulator so that the throttling is removed. In line with a rising number of A-tractors, we have unfortunately also seen an increased number of tragic accidents with both fatalities and those seriously injured. These are most often single-vehicle accidents where the speed was far above the permitted 30 kilometers per hour.

Madam Speaker! Motorcyclists are often forgotten in the debate. To crash into a wire fence at 100 kilometers per hour very likely leads to death, or perhaps even worse: lifelong pain and disability. Norway has begun work with under-gliding protection on road fences, and Sweden should promptly do the same. When Vägverket at one time began the work of separating roads, they chose to rule out the option of separating the roads with concrete instead of wire fences, which I regret.

An excellent example of this is the motorway between Malmö and Lund. As far as I can remember, there have been concrete elements between the lanes with different directions of travel. It is significantly cheaper, and the barrier normally does not need expensive repairs if someone has driven into it. It also does not lead to hour-long stops. Furthermore, it is gentler on motorcyclists.

Another danger for motorcyclists is loose gravel. When motorcyclists take out their motorcycles in the spring and Trafikverket has not had time to sweep up after the winter, the danger is greatest. It is truly important that Trafikverket ensures that the roads are kept clean. When it rains, manhole covers are a great danger. They become very slippery. I have myself fallen on a manhole cover. It was not visible, as there was water on it. It should be possible to provide some kind of coating that is rough even when the cover is wet. Getting the number of deceased motorcyclists down to zero is probably not possible, but it is possible to reduce the number with proactive work which also does not need to cost particularly much.

Madam Speaker! In conclusion, I want to focus on those who work to maintain our roads and others who have the road as such as a workplace. Their workplace must be made safer. Every year, between 100 and 200 accidents and incidents occur during roadworks in Sweden. This means it happens three to four times a week. These works do not come as a surprise but are well signposted. Not only is speed a problem, but also a lack of attention. In recent years, we have seen several high-profile accidents linked to this. A measure that we believe could increase awareness of the importance of slowing down at roadworks is that one simply sets higher fines for speed violations at roadworks, which is found in our reservation.

Accidents based on lack of attention are not as easy to prevent. When I drove on the autobahn many years ago, there were markings in the road at roadworks. They made a lot of noise inside the vehicles, and it was impossible to miss that one should slow down. With more modern vehicles, we might also be able to reduce the risk as older vehicles disappear, since both passenger cars and trucks now mostly have autobrake systems. But, Madam Speaker, I mean that we should thoroughly investigate how we can reduce the number of accidents during work on the road. It is not reasonable to have several such accidents a week. We need to introduce a systematic effort to reduce this figure. It should preferably be zero.

The speech at riksdagen.se, in Swedish (opens in a new tab)

Helena Gellerman (L)

Madam Speaker! Today we are going to debate road safety, which is very close to my heart.

Sweden has conducted successful road safety work for a long time and is the country in the world with the lowest number of road fatalities per inhabitant. Many Swedish inventions have contributed to this, from the seat belt, which has saved many lives, to the first female crash test dummy, which was recently presented. At the same time, the roads have been improved step by step, with grade-separated intersections, median strips to avoid head-on collisions, as well as roundabouts.

Sweden created the zero vision, a mental midpoint to hold onto in order to step by step continue to reduce the number of deaths in traffic to zero. What is required then for no one to die in traffic? Analyses show that the most important causes of the accidents are excessive speed, alcohol and other drugs, as well as fatigue and other inattentiveness. The human factor actually lies behind over 90 percent of all accidents.

Madam Speaker! The main motive for the development of self-driving cars was precisely that one wanted to facilitate things for the driver, bridge various human failings, and significantly reduce the number of accidents. In a study, the American company Waymo, which develops self-driving cars, describes that 92 percent of the fatal accidents included in the study could have been avoided if the car had been self-driving. It is a rather interesting fact.

Fully self-driving cars are, however, some time away. At the same time, much of the technology is already present today in the cars we see around us. It is therefore important that we review obstacles to testing the technology in a safe way, with larger tests in a real environment, and successively introduce the technology for specific purposes. Sweden has the conditions to become a pioneering country when it comes to self-driving vehicles and thereby utilize all the great societal benefits that the technology allows, not least within traffic safety.

It is easy to be fascinated by new technology, and we Liberals are technology optimists. Sweden's success in traffic safety has, however, been created largely by toiling to improve our roads step by step and ensuring that vehicles have become safer with every new model year, not least with the help of systems that compensate for many of human's errors.

What can we then do more regarding the human factor while self-driving cars are being developed? We know that the risk of accidents increases in proportion to a higher speed of the vehicles. Even greenhouse gas emissions and noise have the same connection to speed. In addition to personal suffering, the environment is degraded, and society's costs increase. For safer roads, we Liberals want that requirements for sustainable speeds be set in public procurement of transport services, meaning that the supplier's vehicles maintain the speed. This would have a dampening effect on the average speed on our roads and radically reduce emissions.

Monitoring and control is an important part of regulatory compliance. The Liberals want to see more traffic police. We have many vehicles on our Swedish roads, not least foreign ones, that would not pass a technical inspection. We therefore need significantly more vehicle inspections. At the same time, controls need to be carried out regarding the use of alcohol and other drugs and that the rules for speed and driving and rest times are respected. Here, the work with alcohol bombs in our ports is an important piece of the puzzle.

Hand in hand with new technology and controls to ensure that laws are followed, the basic maintenance of our roads must also increase for increased road safety. We want to see increased maintenance throughout the country, not least in the less heavily trafficked road network. Road safety should not depend on where in the country one lives. For example, road markings have a decisive impact on road safety, regardless of whether it is the human eye or a camera that is to detect the markings. One must know that one is staying on their side of the road. A review of the standard of road markings in our country is required.

The Liberals believe in the possibilities of technology to increase road safety. More and more cars are connected and can share their road safety data to, for example, identify ice patches or other cars when visibility is obscured. This could, for example, mean that one can go out and salt the roads in time. The potential in the information in today's vehicles can be utilized significantly better, and rules that hinder development should be reviewed.

The share of unprotected road users in fatal accidents is a worrying trend, not least the share of cyclists and pedestrians. Of 210 killed in 2021, 85 were unprotected road users - a full 40 percent. The Liberals want to see a review of the traffic environments for unprotected road users.

Here, the availability of data plays a very important role, so that research and development based on accident data can be facilitated. This must, of course, be done with regard to personal privacy.

The rules for access to Trafikverket's system for traffic accidents, Strada, were changed a few years ago for privacy reasons. The review was good, but access to data has however been restricted to such an extent that important traffic safety work cannot be performed.

This may result in road safety, not least for example for the unprotected road users such as motorcyclists, risking being neglected. The Liberals want to investigate the consequences of the restrictive access to data and how unwanted effects can be addressed.

An important part of the work on road safety is the access to a solid driving education. Here, we need to tackle the illegal driving schools and improve the proportion that pass the theory and driving tests. Otherwise, we risk getting an increased number of accidents on our roads in perhaps five or ten years because we have less well-trained drivers than today.

I also intended to bring up the issue of moped cars and A-tractors. The number of moped cars has increased significantly over the last two years. The same driver's license is required as for an EU moped, where in both cases 45 kilometers per hour is the maximum speed.

The insurance company If presented a report for 2021 showing that every fourth moped car is involved in an accident. They drive off the road or collide with another vehicle.

We Liberals are positive about new technology and the increased mobility it provides, especially for our youth. But it must not simultaneously lead to increased personal injuries. I therefore look forward to VTI's report on the impact of moped cars and A-tractors on traffic safety, which is to be delivered in November this year.

On 15 July 2020, the rules for A-tractors were changed. This has resulted in it being significantly easier to manipulate the speed and switch the vehicle to have no speed limit.

The number of heavier vehicles registered as A-tractors has increased. At the same time, the number of accidents has increased. Therefore, the government has now addressed this. It has been decided that the vehicles must have winter tires.

It was just decided that the seat belt needs to be used and that a maximum of one person may sit per seat, which for me is a matter of course. We continue to look at the issue. Among other things, this is being reviewed with A-tractors in the EU's driving license directive.

Madam Speaker! We can all be affected by illnesses that can affect our ability to drive. Therefore, it is important that there is a uniform way to test whether an illness or impaired vision actually affects the driving ability itself. The Liberals therefore want that it is reviewed so that traffic medical assessments are made in the same way throughout the country. Today, it depends on the competence in the different regions.

Finally, Madam Speaker, I want to bring up the announcement that the Liberals took the initiative on two years ago. It concerns those individuals who take the vision test and who turn out to have visual defects. Their driver's licenses are revoked immediately.

It means that they do not have a fair chance to show whether their driving ability is affected by the visual impairment. It is not reasonable. It affects 1,000 people every year, where research shows that half could still drive safely. VTI has produced a report, and the government is currently reviewing the issue.

Madam Speaker! In conclusion: Road safety is an area that Sweden has every reason to be proud of, while at the same time much work remains for us to reach the zero vision.

(Applause)

The speech at riksdagen.se, in Swedish (opens in a new tab)

Daniel Helldén (MP)

Madam Speaker! I thought of one aspect. There were many things that MP Gellerman took up. There was a lot about technological development and praise of what it can provide. I can only emphasize that.

I can also stand behind the fact that we see a fantastic development in the transport area and for vehicles where we can manage traffic safety in a completely different way.

Today, it is difficult to buy a car that cannot, in principle, be speed-limited. It can follow the speed limit because it has that type of system.

It would be interesting to hear if the government has any thoughts on utilizing this in road safety work. We can often talk about how the technology is coming and that we can then do a lot of things. I would say that it is already here.

I intended to point that out in this context. We are talking all the time about future development. Already in 1999-2002, Vägverket, as it was called at the time, conducted a large-scale trial with what was called ISA, that is, Intelligent Speed Adaptation.

It was an incredibly successful attempt. There, one could show that with, from the perspective of today's technology, incredibly simple technology, one could ensure that cars maintained the speed. This applied primarily inside our cities, where we want them to drive 30-40 kilometers per hour, or 60 kilometers per hour on our larger roads.

This technology exists. Back then, they used compasses, transponders, a bit of GPS and other things. It is not at all particularly advanced anymore, especially not the compass.

I wonder: Is there any plan by the government to use what already exists and ensure that people keep the speed? We know that speed is one of the biggest causes of people being killed in traffic.

The speech at riksdagen.se, in Swedish (opens in a new tab)

Helena Gellerman (L)

Madam Speaker! Thank you, member, for the question!

The question of speed is close to my heart. It is one of the reasons why I would like to push forward the development towards self-driving cars.

Investigations have shown that we will get a calmer pace on our roads if one leaves it to the car to keep the pace. Then all cars will drive at approximately the same pace.

I also pointed out in my speech that we want public authorities that carry out procurements to set requirements that the speed must be maintained.

Many attempts are also being made regarding geofencing. You geographically enclose a certain area. Within that area, you can only maintain a certain speed.

Most of our cars today are connected. In that way, it can be controlled so that a car cannot drive faster than a certain speed.

We in the Liberals support that this could be looked at, for example around schools. There we often have 30 kilometers per hour. One can also utilize the technology in other ways in areas with geofencing, that is, where one closes off.

At the same time, we believe more in that technology. One selects where in the areas, based on traffic safety, that it should be applied. But to do it generally and say that one controls the cars, we do not believe in that.

In different ways in different situations, you might need to accelerate. We also believe that people should be allowed to drive their vehicles. But they must, of course, stay within the speed limits. That is why we are also pushing for more traffic police.

The speech at riksdagen.se, in Swedish (opens in a new tab)

Daniel Helldén (MP)

Madam Speaker! This is what is somewhat interesting. The technology to do this in existing vehicles has existed for over 20 years. Everything that is sold today can be used for geofencing. It can be done.

We often talk about that something should be done further ahead. What I am looking for a bit is why we do not do it now. I will willingly admit that the previous government has not done it. I can only regret that.

The question is actually whether the current government intends to do anything in this area. We are talking about using geofencing around schools where the limit is 30 kilometers per hour. The question is why we should not use that technology even when it is 40 kilometers per hour in cities or on rural roads where it is 60 kilometers per hour. One is not allowed to break the speed limits.

Then one should reasonably be able to use this technology to ensure that it works in a good way. We can remove all speed cameras around the country, and then people can keep their speed so that we get a traffic safety.

Patrik Jönsson speaks in the debate on raising speeds. Some speeds we have lowered because we know that people never follow the speed limits but stay far above them. Then one could raise the speeds somewhat on certain roads, because one knows that people will not stay incredibly far above. This is something that I think we should utilize and that the transport committee should look closer at. It is always about that we should do this at some point far in the future, but the technology is already in place.

Once again, the question is: Can the government, which Member Gellerman represents, imagine doing something in this area?

The speech at riksdagen.se, in Swedish (opens in a new tab)

Helena Gellerman (L)

Madam Speaker! Thank you, Daniel Helldén, for the follow-up questions! In my speech, I did mention that we should enable larger tests in real-world environments. There, I related much to self-driving cars but also to other technologies linked to that.

When the investigation on ISA—that is, constant speed, where a limit was set for how fast the cars could travel—was conducted, there were no connected cars. It is only now that we are starting to get the opportunity to work with geofencing.

I would welcome tests on a larger scale where perhaps a city would be willing to look at geofencing around a number of schools and see how it turns out. Based on that, one can then draw conclusions that one might then be able to transfer to more places around schools and also to other areas. But it requires that there is a municipality that is on board with this, because the schools are located in municipalities, and it is the municipalities that have jurisdiction over the issue. It is not actually the state. But I welcome that one should test the technology in this way.

The chairman also mentioned that one could increase the speed on certain road sections. We in the Liberals are also positive towards variable speeds, where the speed can be changed depending on how many cars are driving at the moment and the condition of the road. On the other hand, we want to improve maintenance generally so that we do not need to lower the speed out in the countryside because the maintenance has been substandard. If traffic safety is lowered, one must of course lower the speed. It is a focus for us to increase traffic safety on those roads. But thank you for the question!

The speech at riksdagen.se, in Swedish (opens in a new tab)

Linda W Snecker (V)

Madam Speaker! Often it does not require huge efforts to increase road safety. It can be about roadblocks and lights, requirements for seat belts in A-tractors, driver training, respect for one another in traffic and checks of driving ability throughout life.

Men are heavily overrepresented among those killed in traffic. During 2021, 155 men and 54 women died. Single-vehicle accidents and head-on collisions between passenger cars are the most common types of accidents. On the other hand, the risk of injury for women is significantly higher. The risk for, for example, neck injuries is greater.

Despite this, in crash tests, crash dummies shaped after the female body have not been used; instead, smaller dummies shaped after a male body have been used. But a few weeks ago, the news came that the first female crash dummy had been tested. Since so many of us have actually raised this in our speeches, we must try to understand how significant it is and how constantly underrepresented women always are. But in global safety tests, the woman is still considered a small version of a male body.

It is clear that more needs to be done. Road safety must be adapted to things as self-evident as the body's functions. Neck muscles and hips look different, and the body also changes with age.

Vision is perhaps what we all notice changing most with age – sometimes a lot and sometimes it creeps up on you. Still, vision is only tested once, and that is when you get a driver's license. Vision changes over time, and drivers do not always perceive that their vision is getting worse, which of course affects traffic safety negatively. Impaired vision can appear as early as age 40-45, and at age 60, most have more or less changed vision.

Drivers older than 74 are involved in 1,067 accidents. It is approximately 5 percent of all accidents.

This matter regarding vision tests is not a new issue for the Committee on Transport, but it has been addressed for several years. Last year, SD, C, KD, and L were in complete agreement that vision tests should be introduced. But the issue has been addressed at least since 2017. At that time, the committee emphasized the importance of continued development work regarding vision tests. When we debated the issue in 2017 and 2018, the committee particularly highlighted the importance of the issue of vision tests being included in the ongoing road safety work to achieve the zero vision.

When the question was raised in the Committee on Transport 2019, the committee stated in its report that it intended to follow Transportstyrelsen's work in reviewing, among other things, the synchronization requirements in the medical regulations. It was a very great interest, it was written in the report text.

So it continued in 2020 and 2021. At that time, the committee stated that it intended to monitor the issue regarding the need for regular eye examinations. This is, therefore, an issue that the committee has hesitated on for a long time, with different parties having joined the view on the importance of eye examinations.

The question then is: Why is nothing being done? Why is the government doing nothing? KD's then-group leader, the current Minister for Infrastructure, approved the Christian Democrats' motion, which is also being submitted this year, and has pushed forward on the issue in the Riksdag. Instead, the government parties, who have previously supported this, now write in this year's committee report: "The committee notes that the Transport Agency considers that any potential change to the rules would require changes to laws and regulations, and the committee is currently not prepared to take the initiative for such changes."

In other words: There will be no oversight; the Christian Democrats, despite now having the Minister for Infrastructure position within their party, will not follow up on their own policy. And there is no interest in continuing the work that they have pushed for so long in the committee.

Therefore, I intend to join KD's and the Center Party's motion and move for approval of reservation 19.

The speech at riksdagen.se, in Swedish (opens in a new tab)

Anders Karlsson (C)

Madam Speaker! I too shall enter this debate on road safety, even though I feel that we are in very much agreement on these issues.

I would like to begin by moving for approval of reservation 14. It concerns road safety for moped cars and A-tractors.

This issue regarding A-tractors has been raised here in the chamber today. I will continue to do so. I think it is an important issue, also because there has been such a large change in that so many more people today use A-tractors.

This is also a very clear rural issue. Many times, it is a lack of communication and a lack of public transport that makes it so that these young people must find a solution. Perhaps parents or friends do not always have the opportunity to handle this with the transportation.

I am very happy about the changes that have been decided regarding a better regulatory framework for A-traktors where one must have winter tires in the winter and use the safety belts that are available. As recently as last winter, I witnessed an accident just outside my house. It was two girls who collided and did not have safety belts. It was not at high speed. I know who they were; you saw them every day when they were on their way to the high school. Had they used safety belts, they would not have suffered the neck problems they did. Now I think it went quite well anyway, but this is important. Therefore, the decisions that have been made are absolutely excellent.

Now that these decisions have been made to improve the technology, it is also important to take the next step and give these young people the opportunity to drive a bit faster. 30 kilometers per hour is slow. I have been a farmer and driven my 30-kilometer tractors, and when I then got to drive 40 kilometers per hour, it was a huge difference. It is also that for these young people.

Safety has become much better in this way. Compared to the old A-tractors - I was also there once in a while - which had a rigid rear axle and wide tires, and which one actually had to drive as fast as possible on two gears with that regulatory framework, this technology provides incredibly much better vehicles to handle at a slightly higher speed.

I hope that we can move forward with this and make that decision a bit further ahead. I still feel that we have a majority for this.

When it comes to safety in general, quite a few accidents still occur in traffic. In 2021, we had 220 fatalities, of which 20 percent could be related to alcohol and drugs. Highlighting alcohol and drugs is important to increase road safety. Regardless of what speed you maintain and how well you behave, you may encounter those who are under the influence of drugs. Just as someone mentioned earlier today, the controls at the ports are very important, but we also need more controls out in general to ensure that alcohol and drugs are used as little as possible in traffic.

There is also sobriety-supporting technology with alcohol locks, barriers and so on. Even there, much is happening that goes in the right direction to provide support in that part.

Generally, technology often moves in the right direction to improve safety. With the A-tractors that went 45 kilometers per hour, many experienced that one could catch up to them, that they were a risk and that they created queues. Today, more and more cars have adaptive cruise control, which means that if you catch up to an A-tractor, you are braked in a good way so that you do not face that risk. It is not always obvious that we should redesign the A-tractor; perhaps it is the cars we should redesign by using the new technology that exists to reduce accidents.

What can make one jump a little when it comes to the statistics we have received in the work with TU13 are the many wildlife accidents. Over 67,000 wildlife accidents is very much. Here, one should look at how to reduce this. Despite everything, there are not so many fatal accidents, but we have serious accidents that mean we must reduce that part. Even here, there are technical solutions to secure crossings, detect wildlife with technology, and so on. That part is also important to get right.

Then, speaking of traffic safety, one can wonder if a car today, with all the technology, has become almost like an airplane. Perhaps one should consider a bit of training on what a modern vehicle looks like, because it is starting to become very advanced. One can also consider when you are supposed to use these touchscreens, which are sometimes very wide, are located quite far away, and ergonomically are not always one hundred percent right for you. There is probably quite a lot to consider for the future to achieve even better safety in traffic.

In conclusion, I would like to bring up what the EU Commission has been pointing out regarding the new driving license directive. The driving license is very important. It is the kind of thing one always wants to have with them. It is used very much as an ID document. However, it is somewhat hopelessly outdated, Madam Speaker, not to have a digital form of a driving license today. When we can have so many other documents and ID systems in other ways, we should also be able to solve this. Now there is a proposal from the EU Commission that we should come up with some type of solution even in our committee. I hope that we can work further with that part and obtain a more modern technology.

(Applause)

The speech at riksdagen.se, in Swedish (opens in a new tab)

Daniel Helldén (MP)

Madam Speaker! Having top-class road safety is prioritized by all parties, as I perceive it. We all stand behind the zero vision: No one shall die in traffic. It is a Swedish invention and vision that has won international recognition. We should be proud of it. This goal stands firm and shall lead the work on how we design cycle paths, footpaths, roads, vehicles, and all environments where we stay. It is about an interaction between the different types of traffic, different people, and different needs.

The area of road safety affects us all in our everyday lives. Few things are so concretely linked to living a public life together. We agree on the goal, but there are differing opinions on how we should proceed. We do not always have the same analysis of which trade-offs need to be made, but we have the same goal.

In today's report on road safety, 110 motions are addressed. This demonstrates the great need for continued reforms of road safety work in Sweden.

Madam Speaker! I want to raise a few points in this report. The first concerns the need to reform the driving license eligibility for light trucks and to allow 4.2-ton light trucks that run on electricity to be driven with a B-license.

Today, the weight limit is 3.5 tons. Up to that, you can drive with your ordinary B-driving license, the most common type of driving license. If you exceed 3.5 tons, you must however have a C-driving license for heavy traffic.

This is based on traffic safety assessments. The vehicles change character significantly when the weight increases by several tons, and the size becomes considerably larger. This is entirely reasonable. But today, we are working intensively to transition the transports from fossil fuels to electricity. This is being done so that we can meet the necessary climate goals for the transport sector, but also to improve the air quality in our cities. The zero vision should, as I see it, not only be a question of physical violence but also a question of removing the harmful effects of traffic. No one should have to die from the environmental impact of traffic.

When light trucks transition to being electric-powered, the vehicles become heavier, and the load needs to be reduced. This creates a negative competitive condition while the vehicles become more expensive. The incentives to switch to electricity decrease, and strict regulations, for example environmental zones, become the only alternative.

To address that problem, the weight limit for driving light trucks with a B-license needs to be changed to 4.2 tons for those running on electricity. This way, the batteries can be installed without changing the load volume, and the license can continue to be a B-license. The weight shift does not affect the traffic safety work at all, as I see it.

The EU already opened up for this change in the driving license directive around 2020. But Sweden has not introduced it. It is unfortunate and slows down the transition to emission-free transport. This means, not least, that cities miss out on a smooth transition to more electric vehicles.

Another solution could, of course, be that everyone with a B-license takes a C-license. But the demand for drivers with a C-license is so great that it is not feasible. If the solution were that more people should take a C-license, it would also mean that even more large vehicles would be driving in our cities, and they would be driving without electricity. We would get more harmful emissions. No one wants that.

I have met, among others, Ikea, which has the goal that all their transports shall be fossil-free. But due to the shortage of drivers with C-licenses, that equation cannot be solved. They cannot find drivers for anything other than light trucks. Therefore, the change of the weight class to 4.2 tons was needed. Other companies also testify to this exact problem. The will for transition is great. We shall help the business sector, not brake the development.

Madam Speaker! The Government recently tasked the Transport Agency with carrying out a pilot project with electric vehicles of 4.2 tons and a B-driving license. It is good that a pilot is being conducted. But why only a pilot? It surprises me.

Even when the Transport Agency conducted its investigation, many pointed out that we should take the step immediately. I wonder what is preventing us from immediately taking that step into the electric era when it comes to light vehicles, light trucks. The EU has approved this solution. There are actually no obstacles. The Transport Agency finds, as usual, a lot of obstacles, which I would say are largely excuses for not changing this. Reasonably, we should immediately move to full implementation of this part of the driving license directive. There is nothing preventing it.

Madam Speaker! I stand by all my reservations. But for the sake of time in tomorrow's vote, I choose to move for approval of only one reservation. I therefore move for approval of my and the Center Party's joint reservation number 20.

(Applause)

The speech at riksdagen.se, in Swedish (opens in a new tab)

Kenneth G Forslund (S)

Madam Speaker! In this report, motions regarding the speed limits for A-tractors are handled, among other things. I can state that everyone has an opinion on how fast the A-tractors drive. They drive either too fast or too slowly.

I belong to those who think that they unfortunately are allowed to drive too slowly. I have therefore, in motion 2022/23:1984, motioned to increase the speed limit to 45 kilometers per hour, which is the same as for moped cars, which have a completely different technical construction and which, for most, appear significantly worse when it comes to collisions or other accidents. The A-tractors are converted cars and are today based on fairly safe cars and are driven at low speeds. Thus, they are significantly more crash-safe.

I note, however, that a long series of proposals to change the rules for A-tractors is coming from Trafikverket. These are repeated by the Transport Committee. This is done in a constructive manner. They point to the need to increase safety for these vehicles with requirements for seat belts, on the fact that there should not be more passengers than can be fastened with belts – simply fewer passengers in the car – and on winter tires. There should also be requirements for better driver training. All of this is relevant. But what is missing is the increase of the speed limit.

I have carefully read through the Committee on Transport's report. It provides good reasoning as to why one should wait with raising the speed limit until the safety-enhancing measures are fully implemented. It is a reasonable stance. Therefore, I will not move for approval of either my motion or the two reservations that propose approval of it. I am, however, grateful that members from other parties, the Sweden Democrats and the Centre Party, have generously included approval of my motion as well in their reservation proposals.

Now the work must proceed with increasing safety. It is needed. Every young life that is wasted in an accident with a moped car or an A-tractor is one too many. We shall reduce traffic fatalities, especially in this area.

When all those measures are implemented, it will be a matter of proof regarding raising the speed limit. It is done either through a raised speed limit for Attractors or through what we can read about in the Committee on Transport's report regarding the EU's work on introducing an additional driving license: a kind of youth driving license. As far as that work has come now, it concerns a speed limit of 40 kilometers per hour.

Perhaps we should not fight over 5 kilometers here or there in the end. Even an increase up to 40 would mean that these vehicles can better keep up with the flow of traffic inside the cities, where they are also operated. Out on the highway, it is easier to get around them. There are sometimes quite a few unplanned panic maneuvers, but it is nevertheless easier on a wider, more open road to get past a slow-moving vehicle.

I note the Transport Committee's rather extensive reasoning regarding young people's transport needs as an argument for the A-traktors. I agree with that.

But there is one thing that is missed in your reasoning: the social factor. It is not just about young people having the opportunity to go and meet each other. It is also a hobby for a number of young people who perhaps are often not interested in sports in one form or another. When we say that we are to stimulate activities for young people so that they have something to do, it unfortunately often is only about traditional association life and sports life. Very rarely do we cater to those who are interested in engines and motor vehicles of various kinds.

If we look at the youths who, over a few decades, have been involved with A-traktors, we see that for some of them it has been a gateway to a lifelong car hobby. Some of them have tinkered with and built upon their A-traktors, learned a lot from it and become skilled car builders, as we would say in Swedish; in English, they are called customizers.

Some of them today build world-famous car creations, custom cars, which are showcased at fairs around the world and in international TV programs where they receive attention for their craftsmanship and their construction solutions. In the USA, which perhaps is still the homeland of motoring and the hobby, Swedish car restorers and car builders are considered to be even the absolute best at such conversions and at building entire vehicles.

That perspective also exists. For a large group of young people, it is not just a means of transport. It is also a genuine interest, which further ahead in life can take them far.

I look forward to increased road safety, a new youth driving license, and eventually an increased speed limit for A-tractors. I believe that is the long-term goal nonetheless.

Road safety

Madam Speaker! With that, I wish to agree with Carina Ödebrink and the Social Democrats' motion earlier in the debate regarding the approval of reservation 10.

(Applause)

The deliberation was hereby concluded.

(A decision was to be taken on 20 June.)

The speech at riksdagen.se, in Swedish (opens in a new tab)