Narrow-Track Agricultural Tractors: A Survey on the Load of the Hand-Operated Foldable Rollbar.
To protect the driver in case of a tractor overturn, narrow-track tractors (used in vineyards and orchards) can be equipped with a rollover protective structure (ROPS) consisting of a two-pillar front-mounted foldable rollbar. The transition from the horizontal (rest) to the vertical (protection) position of this ROPS is performed manually by the driver. In addition to the time spent performing this task many times each day, a moderate physical load is required, given that these rollbars often have a mass of some tens of kilograms. In practice, neglect and poor attention to safety lead to the foldable rollbar remaining continuously in the rest position rather than being moved to the vertical (protection) position. Several rollover accidents have been fatal for the driver because the tractor, although equipped with a two-pillar front-mounted ROPS, had the rollbar in the horizontal position at the time of the event, thus assuring no protection to the driver. This issue is quite serious. To remove at least one of the problems for the proper management of this type of ROPS, the OECD has recently updated its Code 6 by introducing an optional test addressing the manual handling of front-mounted rollbars, providing a maximum load of 100 N. Several tests were conducted on new rollbars to ascertain the accuracy of this limit. The 100 N value was generally exceeded, which is cause for criticism. Indeed, a more appropriate reference for manual handling in this case would be the higher loads (up to 250 N) already provided by other standards for non-continuous tasks.
Rollover of tractors — international experiences
Abstract Serious occupational injuries caused by rollover of tractors can be prevented by fitting Rollover Protection Structures (ROPS). In some countries authorities have required such protection on tractors for many years. Others have recommendations or no rules at all. In a survey of tractor rollover injuries and protective measures, the developments in twelve countries are described. Sweden and New Zealand were first to develop ROPS, in the 50's. Mandatory regulations for new tractors were introduced in Sweden in 1959, Denmark 1967, Finland 1969, West Germany, Great Britain, and New Zealand in 1970, the United States 1972, Spain 1975, Norway 1977, and in Switzerland 1978. In most countries the safety rules extended to old tractors some years later, but were not always mandatory. In Canada and Australia federal authorities have no regulations at all concerning ROPS on tractors. In Sweden the frequency of fatal rollovers per 100 000 tractors per year has been reduced from 17 to 0.3 since mandatory regulations were introduced. In Norway the frequency has decreased from 24 to 4 between the periods 1961–1969 and 1979–1986 and in Finland from 16 to 9 from 1980 to 1987. From 1961 to 1986 the West German rate has been reduced from 6.7 to 1.3. In New Zealand the risk has decreased from 37 to 30 from the period 1949–1958 to the period 1969–1974. Studies have shown that the reduction of rollover fatalities depends on the type of protection and the level of usage of ROPS. In countries that introduced mandatory regulations long ago an evident decrease in the number of rollover injuries is reported, especially where retrofitting of ROPS on old tractors is required.
The Area of Freedom, Security and Justice ten years on: Successes and future challenges under the Stockholm Programme. CEPS Paperbacks. June 2010
This book celebrates the tenth anniversary of the Area of Freedom, Security and Justice (AFSJ) by bringing together the views of key practitioners and policy-makers who have played an outstanding role in thinking about and shaping EU policies on freedom, security and justice. 
 
Ten years ago, the member states transferred competences to the EU for law and policy-making in the fields of immigration, asylum and border controls, and began the transfer process for criminal justice and policing. This decade of European cooperation on AFSJ policies has experienced very dynamic convergence, the enactment of a large body of European law and the setting-up of numerous EU agencies working in these domains. Such dynamism in policy-making has not been without challenges and vulnerabilities, however. As this collective volume shows, the main dilemmas that lie ahead relate to an effective (while more plural) institutional framework under the Treaty of Lisbon, stronger judicial scrutiny through a greater role for national courts and the Court of Justice in Luxembourg, better mechanisms for evaluating and monitoring the implementation of EU AFSJ law and a more solid fundamental rights strategy. The contributions in this volume address the progress achieved so far in these policy areas, identify the challenges for future European cooperation in the AFSJ and put forward possible paths for making more progress in the next generation of the EU’s AFSJ.