Proposition 51K0758

Proposition de résolution relative à la généralisation d'un système d'adaptation intelligente de la vitesse.

General information ¶

Author

Open Vld Guido De Padt

Submission date

Jan. 30, 2004

Official page

Visit

Status

Adopted

Requirement

Simple

Subjects

resolution of parliament road safety

Voting ¶

Voted to adopt

CD&V Vooruit Ecolo LE PS | SP Open Vld N-VA FN VB

Voted to reject

MR

Party dissidents ¶

• Alain Courtois (MR) abstained from voting.

Contact form ¶

Do you have a question or request regarding this proposition? Select the most appropriate option for your request and I will get back to you shortly.

⚠️ Possible data error ⚠️

This proposition could possibly include unrelated discussions due to a heuristic extraction bug in propositions prior to 2007. As soon as I've got time to fix it, these will be removed when they're not supposed to be here.

Discussion ¶

May 6, 2004 | Plenary session (Chamber of representatives)

Full source

As you have stated, this report concerns two bills and three proposals for resolutions.

The Bill of Mr. Ansoms aimed at regulating the installation of speed controllers was rejected by the Infrastructure Committee. The Bill of M. Schalck and De Coene aimed at prohibiting the use of these regulators was not the subject of a vote at the request of its primary author. Therefore, I will limit myself to three resolutions proposals: two came from the VLD, one submitted by Mr. Lenssen referring to the classic cruise controls, the other signed by Mr. De Padt on intelligent systems. A third proposal was the result of the initiative of MM. Schalck and De Coene, who intended to impose the intelligent speed limitator on those supposed to be the example.

At the root of each of these proposals is the concern regarding the role that the speed regulator could play in collisions involving mainly heavy-duty vehicles. Accidents on the E17 motorway represent the disaster scenario that different authors tend to prevent by changing the behavior of drivers. The Infrastructure Committee began its work with hearings during which representatives of industry professionals were heard, both at the level of users and manufacturers. The opinions of academic experts were also collected.

Despite different approaches in their origin, many speakers gathered around the same conclusions. Let us quote the main ones:

1 of 1. On the basis of currently available statistics, there is no evidence to establish a cause-to-effect link between the use of cruise control and the occurrence of road accidents. Therefore, a general prohibition cannot be held.

2 of 2. Accident analysis often challenges road construction sites and, in some cases, the use of cruise control is not recommended. Therefore, a prohibition of use may be justified.

3 of 3. Speed controls, and in particular intelligent systems that have been audited separately, have, however, advantages, also from an ecological point of view, which justify their development to be supported. Thus, research and pilot experiments must be conducted before considering any generalization.

4 of 4. The European context should be taken into account for legislation in this area, both at the level of cruise control and at the level of ISA systems.

The work of the committee was also influenced by the decision made at the Council of Ministers of Ostende, during which it was decided to provide a sign prohibiting the use of cruise control. It would then be up to the managers of the roads to place or not this sign in the vicinity of a construction site.

This measure was differently appreciated by the members of the committee due to the practical impossibility of controlling compliance with the prohibition of use. The announcement of this measure by the Minister of Mobility resulted, on the one hand, that Mr. Schalck requested not to vote on his proposal and, on the other hand, that amendments modified the initial proposals for resolutions.

At the end of the two afternoon hearing and debate in the Infrastructure Committee, the resolutions submit to the Government in their final form the following requests:

1 of 1. Open an investigation into the causes of traffic accidents involving trucks, in particular on the impact of speed controllers, on driver behavior while driving and on the correlation between speed controllers and accidents.

2 of 2. When purchasing or leasing service vehicles for ministerial offices and cars for ministries, ensure that they are equipped with the ISA system. 3 of 3. Obligate drivers of such service vehicles to use ISA systems.

4 of 4. Struggle to generalize and, in the long run, make the ISA system mandatory, in its "open" and "semi-open" variants. To base for this purpose on the scientific studies that have already been carried out or which are necessary, as well as to study the impact of the "closed" system on road safety and social adherence to this measure.

These are the texts that are subject, dear colleagues, to your approval.

I have already registered for the discussion: Mr Ansoms, Mr Mortelmans, Mrs Dieu, Mr Lenssen and Mr De Padt. I will begin with Mr. Ansoms and then Mrs. Dieu.

Mr. Ansoms, you are starting. Do you deal with the whole, including your own proposal?

Mr. Speaker, Mr. Minister, dear colleagues, too often there are serious accidents on our motorways. When trucks or buses are involved, the consequences are usually very dramatic. Then there will be all sorts of reactions. There is indignation and there are all kinds of wishes, all kinds of demands, all kinds of proposals. This was also the case last year around this time, when on the E17 several serious accidents occurred shortly after each, involving trucks. The outrage was general.

I reviewed the press a year ago. There were reactions from both the industry and politics. They were actually all quite unanimous, in the sense that the truck drivers themselves saw a ban on cruise control. SAV — yet an important organization of carriers — radically advocated for a ban, on the basis of the Technical Vehicles Act, of cruise control. Also following the recent serious accident with the bus in Wallonia, the representatives of the bus and bus carriers have radically advocated for the removal of cruise control systems from the buses. Also Febetra and Febiac — though somewhat more nuanced — have expressed themselves to do something about this problem of cruise controls in trucks and buses. So, I can say that there was a clear signal from the sector to put a pillar and perk on cruise control in trucks and buses.

Politics followed, of course. We noted a bill proposed by colleague Schalck to include the ban on the use of cruise control in the road code. There was the resolution-Lenssen, which went even further and radically advocated the removal of the classic cruise control from trucks. The title is not false: "Cruise control in trucks is prohibited. VLD'er Georges Lenssen's proposal could be approved this autumn" — so last year — "already." There were still articles in the same sentence: "Cruise control may be banned in October." October 2003 was that.

We also submitted a legislation that was consistent and followed what SAV and the bus companies said, namely that under the Technical Vehicle Act classical cruise control in trucks and buses should be prohibited. We — and many with us — are convinced that cruise control in a truck does indeed have certain advantages — that I will not deny: from an ecological point of view there is less consumption, and also the fatigue of the driver will increase less quickly — but the disadvantages are also clear: loss of concentration, more engaging in all sorts of other things than watching the road, and so on. In addition; especially in Flanders, we can hardly speak of a motorway network where cruise control can be used. It is one large urbanized area with rise and exit and very busy traffic, where it is actually not possible to drive safely with cruise control.

Therefore, we have submitted a bill to provide a legal basis once and for all and to give the minister the possibility to technically prohibit such devices in trucks or buses by royal decree.

Today we discuss the outcome of various discussions. I regret that the result is so weak. In fact, there is not much left of that outrage and even less of all that was then demanded and proposed. The resolution of colleague Lenssen has been limited to only one rule. She says there should be a study of accidents involving trucks. The word cruise control even had to disappear from the title. It also had no object anymore. Ultimately, the legal solution from the policy has remained limited to a new road sign. This was ⁇ in the Belgian Staatsblad of 30 April last year. A traffic sign is what it is. I will soon prove that it will not change much to the situation.

I regret that course of affairs. I am convinced that the moment was ripe. Given the large consensus in the sector, given the political consensus to take a step further, we had to push forward and we had to adjust the law to ban such devices once and for all. It should have been done in the long term because it must be done in consultation and at the European level. One could once and for all have given a legal basis to this optional equipment, along with many other optional equipment, the well-known accessories of cars. If the Minister, on the basis of objective data, on the basis of scientific studies, finds that such optional equipment or accessories endanger safety, he may also prohibit them in that way.

That was the purpose of our bill. We wanted to include this in the law. It gave us the opportunity to follow the technology that is in full development when it comes to cruise control. We heard this during the hearings. It also provides the opportunity to regulate other disputed optional equipment on a legal basis. Take for example the GSM. According to the law, people are not allowed to use a mobile phone in the car. You just have to look around when you are driving on the road. No one attracts anything from it. There is fun telephony, on the motorway at 120 km/h, four meters away from the previous car. It just goes on. This is also not controlled. How can this also be controlled? The same problem arises with the tree-boom cars, with the sound systems installed in some cars. There are scientific studies, including from the professors Pauwels and Hens of the VUB. They say this is very dangerous and that it should be banned. It just goes on. Nothing is done. It is time that we, as legislators, give them a basis and that the Minister can regulate on the basis of those reports.

So nothing of that. What came out of the bus? A traffic board. That traffic sign will have to be placed somewhere, but that will be very limited. Mr. Minister, such traffic signs must indicate somewhere a zone where the cruise control is not allowed to be used, but must also indicate the end of that zone. If you want to place that on the Flemish motorways, then you will have to place hundreds, if not a few thousand – I don’t know how many take-offs there are – of those signs to for example prohibit an entire motorway from border to border for cruise control. Indeed, the end of the zone must also be indicated, which at least assumes that there must be signs on every up- and exit structure. There are already so many signs along our highways, too many, you know. Therefore, you are going to add one more. Therefore, it will be very limited that this board can be placed here and there eventually. Their

Second, the control over the use of the cruise control is actually not to do. How can I check whether the cruise control is on or off? This can be verified afterwards, possibly during a check of the tachograph, in case of an accident or during a check on driving and rest times. However, this does not happen or very little in our country. There will therefore, as with the GSM, in fact not be controlled and no one will attract anything from it.

Third, if there is a check, the question is whether it has legal force for foreign drivers. It is a national traffic sign that has not been notified on the basis of the Vienna Convention, which therefore has not been consulted with other countries. There are specialists who argue that if one did not follow this procedure and, for example, a foreign truck driver would commit an infringement based on this traffic sign, this would not have legal effect. There is a certain logic in that. How can anyone in Sweden know that such a road sign came into force here on 30 April? There has never been a consultation in the Vienna Convention and therefore it has not received international support. There are a lot of lawyers who can refute this in a simple way in case there would be a fine based on a breach of this board.

Finally, if there is a check — but that will not happen much — and if there is a penalty, I have asked you, Mr. Minister, what that penalty will be. An ordinary violation. An ordinary offence for something so important! It is 50 euros. Boys, what are we doing? We here give the impression — that is the point, and that is also my great criticism — that after such a social debate in the media, after such high expectations that were created and after the sector has gone very far to indicate a definitive solution there once and for all, this all ends with a sisser, with a traffic sign that will be able to be placed occasionally in certain places, which is not controllable, probably not valid for foreign truck drivers — where in fact the need is the greatest — and ultimately a breach of which is fined with a financial fine of 50 euros.

For this, yes, that is quite clear. If it is so that in Flanders it is very dangerous to drive over the highway with cruise control with a truck... It is dangerous. That’s what you say, that’s what everyone says and that’s what the industry says. The truck drivers themselves advocate for this to be prohibited. Then you arrive with a traffic sign whose legal force is disputed, that you will only be able to put in a limited number of places and that one cannot control.

They will be fined with 2000 francs or 50 euros. That is then. This, therefore, does not provide a solution to the problem of cruise control in traffic. It is once again an illustration of the way, the light-sensitive way in which one actually approaches road safety. Paars continues to rule by announcement: there are first punitive rulings made by Mr. Lenssen and others, that it should be banned. With resolutions it would be a fact for October last year, but the practice, what one ultimately does to it, what is the result of all this, is very, very lean and will unfortunately not provide a solution to this problem.

There is something, indeed: there is something. We experienced this last year too. In the run-up to the elections, there had to be a traffic law, to give Mrs. Durant something. You know what this traffic law has become. We saw last year that Mr. Verhofstadt wanted a law for insurance against natural disasters. We know what happened to it. They just go on. You absolutely want to do something before June 13, 2004. You want to do something. But what is that, something? What is the result of doing something? So that is: nothing. That is right: you give the public the impression that you are seriously addressing the problem of cruise control in traffic, but you are not actually doing it. It might be useful for a good title one day in the newspaper. Their

This is further illustrated by the following point: the ISA. There are two resolutions from the majority. We support these resolutions because we are in favour of using all possibilities to further develop the ISA system, because we believe that it is indeed serving road safety and that experiments may need to continue. We need to relativize the matter a little. At one point I sat at the VRT in a debate with Hendrik Daems — the new group leader — who proposed it on behalf of the VLD so that ISA would replace speed controls. If one had an ISAs system, one no longer needed to have unmanned cameras and no longer needed to check. So that was ideal for a liberal group leader, to be able to say something like that and to send in the home room. Of course, this must be relativized. However, it is not there yet and we are only talking about an open or semi-open ISA system. If one wants to put that in place of checks, one must have a closed system. We have not yet reached that point, if it ever comes out. Nevertheless, it is suggested to the media: stop all that old-fashioned hassle of controlling and bullying and plaguing people with unmanned cameras, because we are for progress and for the ISA system and then there should be no more control. I just want to say that the reality is something completely different. Their

In addition, here naturally arises the question of which VLD speaks.

A resolution was submitted by the backbenchers of the VLD. They urge the ministers of this government to put a speed limit in their cars. The resolution was unanimously approved by the committee. On the other day there came a press release — probably from Mr. Schalck, I can’t imagine that she came from the VLD — according to which everything was arranged and that all ministers would soon drive a car equipped with a speed limit. This is also the wish of the VLD, at least some of its members. However, Mr. Verhofstadt and Mr. Dewael reacted immediately by saying that they did not participate in that shame.

The big question for us is of course: is it about the VLD of Jean-Marie Dedecker, Verhofstadt and Dewael, or is it about the VLD of Guido De Padt and a few others? Which VLD speaks in this debate? It is all too strange how ridiculous and light-sensitive way one speaks about such important matters. I agree with the minister on this, it is about road safety and the prevention of victims. Our question is, and we may soon know the answer, or maybe we will never know: which VLD should we believe in this, the VLD of Jean-Marie Dedecker, Verhofstadt and Dewael, or the VLD of Guido De Padt and some other brave, well-meaning mayors who find that there needs to be done something about road safety?

CD&V will in any case fully support the resolutions on the introduction of ISA, including among the ministers.

Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, etc. Ansoms, and we wish to continue to join in the goals set at the beginning of the legislature by the government, namely a 50% reduction in the number of deaths on our roads by 2010.

Despite the slow and steady improvement of safety levels across the European Union — in 30 years, road traffic in Europe of the Fifteen has increased by 30%, but the number of road deaths has, fortunately, decreased by half — the situation remains socially unacceptable and hardly justifiable for the citizen. In this regard, the bills or resolutions we have discussed almost jointly in the Infrastructure Committee have enabled us to grasp the phenomenon of these new security technologies. As it has been said, we have examined in particular the systems of speed regulators and adapters. It can be said that these systems have almost no more secrets for the members of the commission! Everyone knows that Belgium is a bad student in terms of security, when compared to Sweden, the United Kingdom or the Netherlands. Mr Ansoms, contrary to what you say, we were able to attend a seminar organized by Minister Anciaux and the Swedes, who came to explain how they had implemented their security system. The government is paying attention to this problem.

On the other hand, in today’s press, we have been able to see that the fatal accidents on our roads are decreasing. But that is not enough. Therefore, we must react and find solutions. The cars that circulate on our roads are the same as those that circulate on the road network abroad. Therefore, after hearing the various representatives of the industry, we thought we should embrace the new concept of adapters and speed regulators into a more global reflection. This is why we consider it necessary to associate with this analysis the dimensions related to infrastructure and human factors.

For us, the interaction of the vehicle with its environment and with the driver is an important element. No matter how sophisticated they are, these systems must always allow the driver to retain final responsibility. The driver must be able to intervene at any time. In order to better prepare ourselves for the realities, my colleague Annick Saudoyer submitted a series of bills aimed at encouraging defensive and preventive driving techniques. Mr. Ansoms, you can see that, despite your allegations, we are on the right path!

Other initiatives exist at European level, namely the establishment of a methodological framework for the identification of practical means and their dissemination through the drafting of technical guides. This action programme also aims to improve the collection and analysis of data on accidents and personal injury and thereby further research and development to invent the solutions of tomorrow.

As a socialist, another issue that holds me at heart is the accessibility of these new technologies. Security must be democratized. At present, what is accessible to the buyer of a beautiful sedan is ⁇ not accessible to the buyer of a small vehicle.

It is essential that the driver is well informed about the functioning of new technologies and that he can properly evaluate their advantages and disadvantages.

Finally, there are legal barriers. European legislation must evolve in parallel with the development of these technologies. You have already mentioned this point.

The mobilization of all levels of power is indispensable to meet the challenge of improving road safety in Belgium and Europe.

In this context, I intervened, after the work in committee, with the Union of Cities and Municipalities of Wallonia to see if it could not set up a system similar to that that was experimented in Ghent (the ISA system). I received an answer on this issue this morning. Thus, the Union of Cities is in favor of this type of experience, but wants a subsidy because until now, it has focused everything on infrastructure. Moreover, it is difficult for them to intervene without subsidies.

Following the work carried out in the committee, the Socialist Group is considering voting on MM’s resolution proposals. Lenssen, Schalk and De Padt because they respond to some extent to our concerns. On the other hand, Mr Ansoms, we cannot vote for your bill because, if it aims to prohibit the installation of regulators, it is only a patch on a wooden leg. In fact, you are not without knowing that many trucks registered abroad cross our country. However, it is very difficult to predict measures concerning them.

In conclusion, I would like to recall that mobility constitutes for the Socialist Party a central link of social life. Without it, the social, economic and cultural ties would not know their current development.

An effective mobility policy must therefore be an adequate response, both in terms of supply and quality, to the growing needs expressed by the population and ⁇ .

Sustainable mobility can only be a solidarity and environmental mobility.

This is why the PS wants to prioritize a mobility that restores equality among users, reduces environmental harm, reduces negative health effects and increases travel safety.

Mr. Speaker, when last year a lot of head-to-head rides involving trucks gave rise to file, I asked the Minister of Mobility to conduct a study to investigate whether there was a causal link between head-to-head rides involving trucks and the use of the classic cruise control system.

Since no action was taken, in September 2003 I submitted a proposal for a resolution containing three questions.

First, I requested to ban the use of traditional cruise control systems on trucks.

Second, I have asked for any fiscal incentives for the use of intelligent cruise control systems, in which a vehicle approaching another vehicle automatically slows down.

Thirdly, I asked for further investigation into the correlation between serious accidents involving trucks and the use of a classic cruise control system.

Everyone feels that the use of a traditional cruise control system can lead to disturbances of concentration and passive driving behavior, which can lead to late reactions to obstacles that require rapid braking. Therefore, we came up with the idea of making a proposal to make a study on this subject. I must admit that the government has played the ball very quickly and has already proposed in its special Council of Ministers of 20 and 21 March in Oostende to develop a new traffic board by the Minister of Mobility. This should allow the Regions to prohibit the use of cruise control systems at critical and dangerous points in bad weather, at work or in case of failure.

To be honest, I think that is a good solution. I believe that cruise control systems should not be banned everywhere, but that local circumstances should be taken into account. I also believe that this should be applied not only to trucks, but also to cars. If it is dangerous for trucks, it is also dangerous for cars.

I agree with the proposal drawn up by the Council of Ministers. Therefore, I have withdrawn my first point, namely the prohibition of cruise control systems on trucks. I have full confidence in the minister: he has developed the traffic offer very quickly, so that it can now be used in the right locations by the regions. Therefore, I have withdrawn my first point of resolution.

We have clearly opted for a proposal for a resolution and not for an expansion into the law on technical vehicles, as CD&V had proposed. The prohibition of installation in vehicles is a European matter. It would be foolish that at the Belgian level we would prohibit the installation of cruise control systems, while it is permitted for vehicles from outside Belgium. That would not be correct. In addition, vehicles that are not allowed to have a cruise control system in Belgium would not be able to use the system abroad, where it is authorised and safe. Therefore, we have opted for a proposal for a resolution and not for a proposal for a legislative amendment.

The second proposal we made was to provide tax incentives. This issue was not stopped in the committee. However, I, together with my colleagues with a majority, have submitted an amendment to ask the government to examine the possibility of providing a tax incentive for intelligent cruise control systems when it is proven that these systems actually benefit road safety. We leave the government in this entirely free to consider the possibility of examining the opportunity of this.

As regards my third point, in particular the examination of whether there is a causal link between accidents involving trucks and the use of cruise control, the Government has expressed its intention. However, we have submitted this point to vote in the committee. I would of course like to see it approved here today, even if it was just to keep the pressure on the boiler. Traffic safety concerns us all. If it is found that the use of traditional cruise control is nefast for road safety, let us do it quickly and ask the Minister to have this study carried out as soon as possible.

Mr. President, Dear friends

I colleagues, I will begin by congratulating the rapporteur, Mrs De Bue, for the work she has done, all the more difficult as indeed – I have noted it as well as the colleagues, even though I am not followed on the referral to the committee – the proposals would be entangled. This work is clear and allows us to have a very precise view of what happened in the commission.

Not everyone can work in the same company. One of my colleagues recently accused me of not participating. I will answer then that he also does not put his feet in the committee that I preside over! I will never forbid a member who does not come to the National Defense Committee to intervene in a problem concerning the National Defense. All parliamentarians are equal in all sectors within the competence of the federal state.

That being said, neither I nor my group have any particular objections to the proposal for a resolution of our colleague Mr. by Lenssen. You should be a fool to not accept a study. From the moment when a sector is not covered by a true in-depth analysis, it is interesting to conduct a study.

If the government receives five out of five the resolution, if it is voted, I have no doubt that it will endeavour to ask true experts, preferably neutral, unengaged and not only belonging to the Belgian Institute of Road Safety, to carry out an analysis of accidents, in particular those involving trucks.

I know that this has been modified in committee, but I note that the resolution that requires a study is not in symbiosis with the considerants who themselves advance in the judgment made: they anticipate the study. For example, they find that the use of conventional speed limiters can lead to disturbances of concentration. It is known that this is the result of committee discussions and that initially the proposal was not formulated in this way. It came to a system of request for analysis, inquiry, and I have no objection to the subject.

Now let’s go to the second point: the various proposals that provide for speed regulators.

I confess that once again, I do not understand this mania of prohibition. First, for now, there is no generalization of the speed regulator: very few cars are equipped with it, except for some dating from one or two years at most. Few drivers use it for different reasons. And ⁇ for a reason forgotten by the authors of the proposals: our urban network is so dense that the chances of driving quietly at 120 km/h for 42 kilometers without touching its accelerator are very small, in Flanders as well as in Wallonia.

However, it is forgotten that this speed regulator has a number of advantages for its users. First, for speed limit fanes, the controller avoids pushing on the accelerator. A driver who has set his controller to 120 km/h does not tend to push from time to time to climb to 140 or 150 km/h. Absolute supporters of speed limitation—this is not my case but there are in this assembly—should instead applaud by saying that a regulator helps to avoid temptations.

Everyone knows that this is ecological. Any truck transport company will tell you that a well-designed speed regulator can save a famous amount of diesel or, if necessary, gasoline. The reason for this is simple: the driver automatically accelerates to maintain a speed of 90 km/h on the highway, a little more than necessary, while the speed controller does it seriously. By the way, excellent colleagues told me that since they used a speed regulator, their consumption has dropped easily by one liter/100 kilometers. When you do 40,000 or 50,000 kilometers a year, the economy is not negligible.

Finally, this ⁇ ins a greater attention to driving. For trucks, one is released from the obligation to look at both its meter and its accelerator. It is well known that driving a truck is not as simple as this. If I am told that this leads to the driver’s drowsiness, I will answer that this is not the case at all and that drivers are already drowsing. With speed limits at 120, in 30% of accidents there is an immense inattention of the driver.

All this leads to a comment on European harmonization. I also see in the excellent report of Ms. De Bue that Febiac ⁇ this, recommending a thorough analysis of accidents. For Febiac, it is premature to introduce a bill banning the use of "cruise control" on commercial vehicles before it has seen how this happens. It’s not just the fact that truck drivers fall asleep because they use a speed control system. There are a whole range of parameters such as driver training or technical elements that seem to be forgotten.

Obviously, for many parliamentarians, the only response to road dramas is the ban. The prohibition/repression pair is the only one that MM. Ansoms and Delizée recognize as worthy of a real marriage. I believe that the prohibition/repression pair is not enough in this area, there are also elements of prevention. We must know how to use technical control not to ban but to prevent. Without going into details, there are a series of measures, especially in the area of overcoming by a truck, which are taken by the companies themselves to avoid accidents, without parliamentarians having to hold large speeches on prohibition or repression, including the possibility of braking the truck or warning if the driver approaches too close, the possibility of warning if the truck leaves its rolling lane without putting the flash, the possibility of preventing the truck from turning when it is very loaded with semi-trailers.

All of this exists, all of this costs the company expensive and, consequently, is reflected on the citizen. We could find tax formulas for all of this, which Mr. Lenssen is also considering in his resolution proposal and which I find quite interesting.

Finally, rather than preferring the prohibition technique, I prefer to choose the prevention technique. This, of course, seems to me much more important. In addition, let’s not come to tell me that if from 1958 to 2000, the number of deaths has decreased by half, it is only because of the general policy measures we have taken! It is clear that road planning and driver training play a role in this, as well as a whole range of elements.

As for the speed regulator, it is in the classic line of the draft law on road safety. Haro on the speed! At less than 120 km/h, you are a genius, at 122 km/h, you are a driver! Less than 90 km/h, you are a good guy! At 94 km/h, you are a real brute!

In Germany, speed is free on motorways, but with prohibitions. Germany has a remarkable rate in this area. If we refer to the latest figures, Germany is below the European average (8.3%), while our country experiences a rate of 12.9%. However, everyone knows that the Germans do not necessarily drive with an old 2CV or with cars of 61 hp. You just need to go through the German highways to see how they are driving. On the highway, curiously, the number of deaths and accidents is much less significant.

You should never have driven to imagine that a simple system of prohibition of exceeding speed limits will be enough. Every day, people die at less than 90 km/h on the small roads of the Ardennes and less than 120 km/h on the highways. Just see what happens on the weekend, Saturday evening or Sunday morning. Once again, a good conscience is given, in such a way that even the Belgian Institute of Road Safety has mentioned, in the report of Ms. De Bue, that this system is to be banned in places where the importance of traffic is such that it will bring, on the contrary, real dangers.

Mr. Speaker, in conclusion, we cannot accept this anti-automobile hatred that will soon lead to implanting a chip in the skull of each driver to see if he has even thought of exceeding the speed limits. We prefer to act and propose formulas. In the near future, Ms. Lejeune will do so on training and learning driving. We also pay great attention to technical advances in prevention, territorial planning and repression, of course; not to blind and widespread repression as you want to do, but to the repression that targets the most dangerous cases.

I find that, as always, the accidents of the weekend are not subject to a thorough analysis. As always, it has been necessary for insurance companies to take very precise attitudes towards new drivers, because we are not able to find a majority that assumes its responsibilities. As always, we let down the “responsible young drivers” and others and give them a few pips to please them, while there are proposals to bring young people back home to prevent them from killing themselves at dawn and that we could very well end up with home-back systems, which would allow a number of young people and their parents to be satisfied with how the events went on the weekend, rather than discovering the list of deaths on Monday morning.

You will understand, Mr. Lenssen, that the MR will vote in favour of the first proposal. We hope that the others will be sent back to the Greek calendes. We will, of course, vote against the other resolutions.

Mr. Speaker, Mrs. Secretary of State, Mr. Minister, colleagues, I would like to thank first and foremost Mrs. De Bue for the excellent report on a subject that, Mr. Monfils, is not really difficult, as it was about two themes, ISA and the cross-speed regulator.

As for the ISA system, there are indeed, if I am not mistaken, three variants.

There is the open variant, which with visible and/or audible signals warns the driver that he is driving too fast. There is also the closed variant, which directly interferes with the gas supply and adjusts it in such a way that the driver cannot drive harder than the indicated speed.

Finally, there is also the semi-open variant, which, if I am not mistaken, was tested in Ghent and is now in an evaluation phase. In this variant, counter pressure is exercised on the gas pedal, which automatically requires the driver to give less gas.

A number of arguments do not speak entirely in favor of ISA. For example, installing the device in a car can be problematic due to interaction with all other electronics and due to a lack of compatibility with the vehicle. In addition, the cost of the installation could be quite high.

The fact that the installation of ISA could directly lead to a significant reduction in the number of accidents and road deaths has not yet been firmly demonstrated. Some studies show that only 30% of road accidents are partly caused by excessive or inappropriate speed.

A further argument is that, on an ecological level, ISA would only result in a very slight reduction in the emissions of harmful substances.

Drivers who frequently drive the car do not accept the closed ISA system, although open or semi-open variants may rely on their consent.

These are some of the arguments that could not speak entirely in favor of ISA. The automotive manufacturers, for example, are also not really won for ISA, especially not for the closed system. There should also be a European standard. Of course, the European systems should be coordinated with each other. On the other hand, there are, of course, some undeniable advantages of the system.

The insurance premiums for cars could be reduced.

The cost of the device could decrease significantly once there is standardization. When installing the device in new vehicles, it could be aligned with each other. For example, the Swedish government has indicated that it wants to conclude agreements with the car manufacturers from 2005 onwards. From 2008, the issue would be regulated by a European directive. Standardization is coming.

The use of resources and personnel to maintain the speed limit could decrease. Many road constrictions, traffic thresholds, blitzstones, and so on, may become unnecessary in the longer term. However, we are not talking about a period of fifteen or twenty years.

For us, therefore, the advantages clearly weigh against the disadvantages. The Flemish Bloc thus chooses to give its approval to the resolution concerning the generalized implementation of the ISA system.

The notion that, for example, colleague Daems gives about that ISAs system — he just left the hemisphere — is of course not correct. There is no need for any controls anymore. Furthermore, if one finds that the day after the approval in the committee some ministers say they do not intend to use that system, we can still ask questions about the concerns of the government parties regarding road safety. Then, indeed, I must conclude with Mr Ansoms that the VLD — and not only the VLD — speaks with a double language in this matter. This may have anything to do with the upcoming elections.

The VLD does this indeed, colleague Annemans, quite often.

As regards the cross-speed control — the so-called cruise control system — it was clear that there was still ⁇ much uncertainty about the responsibility for accidents on the highways. Truck drivers are already quickly pointed to the finger as the use of the cross-speed regulator in trucks would be the cause of the many accidents on motorways. The image of the truck and truck driver has suffered rightly or wrongly under this inefficient whodunit queste in recent years. While politics, public opinion and the media persuade each other without accurate, measurable figures that truck drivers are cowboys and carry a large portion of the debt burden for accidents on their shoulders, a mere weighing of the advantages and disadvantages of irresponsible driving behavior in freight transport actually contradicts this hypothesis.

Mr. Speaker, colleagues, today the analysis of road safety in this country is conducted by the BIVV. For this purpose, the BIVV uses statistics made available to it by the NIS. In the event of a traffic accident involving injured persons, a form must be completed by the determining police officer in which a number of data relating to the accident is recorded. This questionnaire, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Minister, is very limited and unscientific, which explains why from the current analysis of statistics by the BIVV no causal link can be established with regard to accidents. Thus, statistical data on, inter alia, the state of the road, the nature of the damage, the nature of the top layer, the exact weather conditions, the type of activity of the drivers — cargo transport for their own account or for the account of third parties — the intensity of traffic, the lighting, intervening factors and so on are lacking. Consequently, based on these forms, a longer-term road safety policy is almost impossible. Moreover, only today, with the release of the promising figures by Minister Anciaux — on the decline in road safety figures — it shows that those figures would not be reliable. No one less than traffic expert De Mol — if I am not mistaken, he has been a people’s representative here — says clearly that these figures are absolutely unreliable. He is connected to the University of Ghent. He is ⁇ critical of the figures used by the NIS. Therefore, it is recommended to conduct research in this area as well.

Several niches in the sector have been demanding for years the establishment of an independent institute for the investigation of the causes of road accidents, an institute following the example of our neighbors. Such an investigation carried out by experts and independent of any political or commercial interest, such as insurance companies, can reveal the true cause of road accidents and enables the various responsible, both the stakeholders and the government, to take the necessary measures to reduce the number of road accidents. Their

It is obvious that the tasks of such an institute for the investigation of causes of accidents would not be limited to the analysis of road accidents involving injuries or deaths, but would also analyze accidents involving purely physical damage because it would also contain information that benefits road safety. Their

As already mentioned, the current statistical data are not sufficient to draw causal loopholes and thus support the policy. Only when multiple data are recorded and subsequently analyzed when an accident is determined, can the government implement a targeted policy that can drastically reduce the number of road traffic casualties. It is obvious, I think, that these government policy options can also provide commercial benefits for any business and that ⁇ especially for transport companies because every accident and any damage to vehicles that can be avoided is quantifiable and thus produces profit. The form in which this independent institute should be established is of secondary importance to me at this time, this must be regulated especially at the Flemish level. Their

The proposal of colleague Lenssen is obviously a step in the right direction for us, as it calls for an investigation into the causes of road accidents involving trucks, in particular the impact of cruise control systems on driver driving behavior and the correlation between cruise control and accidents.

I really wonder, Mr. Speaker, whether the name cruise control should not be changed in the concept of cruise speed control. If I am not mistaken, it was the services of the Chamber itself that signaled that word.

Yes, that’s just a kind of designation, I also say macadam and not concrete track.

Mr. Speaker, you can’t blame me if we talk about cross-speed regulator from now on...

Cross speed regulator?

Yes, cross-speed controller, and then in ten years one will always talk about cross-speed controller and no longer about cruise control. Therefore, I dare propose to change the term cruise control in the proposal. I think there is no problem...

Do you think of a word in French for this?

In French, the French speakers should be that, but for the Flamings...

So cross-speed control, between hooks cruise control?

What about the classic cross control?

( ... ...

Which Lodge ? I have nothing to do with the lodge.

( ... ...

The clock?

I try to make a constructive proposal. We will approve the proposal of colleague Lenssen. However, the text still speaks about ...

If we talk about cruise trips, it will not be cruise trips.

( ... ...

What about a cruise? Mr Annemans, a cruise is a cruise, right?

The [...]

Mr. Speaker, let us change that later. That does not have to be an amendment of the Flemish Bloc, which can be calmly through a technical correction.

Furthermore, I agree with Mr. Monfils who says that some of the considerations in the proposal for a resolution are indeed no longer in accordance with the proposal itself, which is now limited exclusively to the examination.

Finally, in that context, I would like to thank all the political groups for the approval of the Vlaams Blok amendment in the committee to change the headline. As the text of the resolution was accepted in the committee, the headline can no longer be: "The ban on the cross-speed controller", and it is indeed better to change the point of view as now unanimously adopted in the committee.

Mr. Speaker, Mr. Minister, colleagues, I would like to join in the congratulations to the rapporteur for the outstanding report.

When outlining road safety policies, the focus of policy makers is first and foremost on driving behavior and road infrastructure.

Currently, new interesting technologies are being developed that can improve the safety of vehicles. These technologies, however, should, in our view, never lead to a responsivization of the driver himself. We are preparing for a future in which the car thinks instead of the human. However, we should not be blind to the positive impact of the inventions of car manufacturers in the past on driver safety.

One of these new and promising technologies is the Intelligent Speed Limiter or ISA, a device that interacts with the vehicle once the maximum allowed speed is exceeded. Several studies show that excessive or unadjusted speed is the main cause of road accidents. As already mentioned, I immediately add that the responsibility for driving at excessive speed at all times lies with the driver himself.

The most important step towards a speed limit has already been taken with this government’s new traffic law. Higher fines for speed breaches have not missed their effect on the mentality of drivers in the short term and, consequently, on the number of road accidents. I speak out of experience. In my police area, I have made controls. I have been checked a week before the new traffic law entered into force and a week after, in the same places and at the same times. I have found that the speed violations have decreased by 38%. Whether there really is a causal link between the new traffic law and the determination is not undeniably established, but it is, in my opinion, a clue.

Colleagues, we would give a completely wrong signal to the public by saying that ISA can have a positive effect on road safety in the short term. Once the population has adopted a safer driving behavior, a further step towards ISA can be taken. For the VLD, it should ⁇ not be an alibi not to take other initiatives that can increase road safety.

Mr De Padt, Mr Van den Eynde wishes to interrupt you.

Mr. De Padt, I would like to hear you refer to those statistics. I even want to go out a little bit in your direction. We learned this morning that the statistics on road accidents for 2002 show a significant improvement compared to previous years. The competent Minister is present. He will know better. However, I thought that on the statistics of accidents, we suddenly fell back to the level of the early 1950s. That is a very big difference. Their

However, allow me to emphasize that in 2002 the super fines were not yet applicable. In other words, these super fines are not needed to address road safety. I am not saying there should be no fines. However, I have the impression that the Dutch statement that the package is more important than the fine amount is still the correct statement.

Mr. Van den Eynde, I do not dispute your position. I only fix the following. It’s not about statistics; it’s about real findings from our police. When observations are made in January or February and these are repeated in similar circumstances in the month of March or a little later, a significant decrease in speed breaches is observed. This is because people are scared. This may have been the reason for these high penalties. One wants to scare people and thereby reduce the speeds to reduce the number of accidents as such.

Colleagues, the hearings showed that ISA is a term that covers many loads. For example, an important distinction must be made between the open, semi-open and closed variant, depending on the type of interaction. Mr. Mortelmans explained the three types. Their

It is clear to us that a generalized introduction of these closed systems cannot be the case, not only from human considerations, but because this variant — the closed system thus — is in conflict with our Road Code which states that the driver must permanently retain control over his vehicle. Their

The results of the various studies show that ISA can have a positive effect on road safety. The most large-scale ISA experiment to date, with open and semi-open systems, which took place in Sweden, shows that the average speed and the number of violations have effectively decreased.

Research also shows that there is a large support for ISA in Belgium. For example, according to a survey by the Belgian Institute for Traffic Safety, 60% of the surveyed Belgians would have won a priori for an ISA system and 70% of the opponents would have no objection to an open ISA system. An experiment with ISA systems in Ghent showed that 87% of participants were won for an open system.

Despite these positive results, we should not be blind to the many obstacles and dangers still associated with ISA.

First, ISA is ⁇ not yet technologically up to date. In particular, the limited availability and poor accuracy of GPS location determinations still cause difficulties in certain areas. On the other hand, the creation and up-to-date maintenance of digital road maps with updated speed limits for the entire road network is another obstacle. Nevertheless, these systems must always and everywhere work correctly, the more given the driver could create a certain habit or even blind confidence in the system.

However, it is also necessary to investigate the cost of ISA. A generalized implementation requires huge investments in telematics infrastructure, both in the cars and along the roads.

Third, there is still a major problem in terms of the accounting of the ISA equipment with other components of the vehicle. This problem threatens to become more delicate due to the increasing use of all kinds of electronics in the car.

Finally, agreements still need to be reached at European level in order to reach a harmonised system.

Colleagues, in that resolution, which was adopted in the committee with 11 votes for and 1 abstinence, the emphasis is therefore placed on the need for more scientific research and pilot projects before the introduction of open and semi-open ISA systems can be considered. Also in Mr. Schalck’s resolution, we advocate a serious, scientifically supported approach.

We agree that politicians and officials in public service can fulfill an important role of social example, but also for the equipment of service vehicles with ISA is an absolute prerequisite that those systems must be technically fully up-to-date and also financially feasible. Otherwise, if those limit conditions are not achieved, the public will regard the experiments with ISA in service cars only as a political stunt. A generalization of the entire fleet of ministerial cabinets and government administrations does not seem to us for tomorrow. After all, let us not forget that it makes little sense to take an example now of something that may not be accomplished until in ten to fifteen years.

It is more important to create a general social and political support to prepare the entire population for ISA. Today’s resolutions can contribute to this.

The last speaker in this general discussion is colleague Daan Schalck.

Mr. Speaker, Mr. Minister, colleagues, in the Infrastructure Committee we have spent many hours in the last years on road safety. That is also right. Belgium has a long way to go in this regard. It is a broad social problem that deserves our absolute attention, also in the future.

There was a broad consensus in the committee on the two topics we discuss today. These two technical systems need to be further developed. They can contribute to road safety.

Let me start with the cruise control of the trucks. A number of colleagues referred to the accidents that occurred frequently, mainly during the works on the E17. It was mainly about head-to-head racing. Colleague Ansoms, you referred to a broad consensus in the sector. However, you did not emphasize one thing, namely that the sector was absolutely opposed to a ban on installation, for various reasons. At the SAV they once said they were in favour, then they returned to that position. Others opposed the introduction of the ban on installation. The broad consensus in the sector was no longer present, especially at the end of the discussion.

There was a consensus among us to limit cruise control on trucks in any case or make it impossible on highways. For the sake of colleague Monfils, we cannot emphasize enough that there is a distinction between cruise control and a speed control in trucks. A speed control that is set to 90km/h does not mean that one has the ability to pull the foot of the pedal. That is where the great danger lies. Cruise control makes this possible. Confusing cruise control and speed control is definitely not good.

Colleagues, there was a consensus and the question is then what legistics is the best technique to apply what we all want. I think that with the KB delivered to us by the Minister – it has, by the way, come ⁇ quickly – we have followed not only the fastest but also the best way.

I read in the newspapers that there are doubts as to whether the board launched by the minister and his royal decree will pass the European test. It was referred to the Vienna Convention. Let us be honest. In my opinion, our proposals would have passed the European test even harder. The suffering path of our bills would have been much longer. I don’t think it’s right to make it seem like our solution would have arrived faster. I dare to say with hand on heart that if one or the other proposal had been accepted, there would have been no solution today and that, however regrettably we find it, we would have had to wait even longer.

I think there are other reasons why it is better not to come up with a bill on a ban on installation. All foreign trucks would be excluded from this scheme. That is the weak point. This week we could read in the press how high the percentage of accidents involving foreign trucks is. If your proposal was accepted, those foreign trucks would be completely excluded from the scheme. Even if my proposal was accepted, we would ⁇ have a general arrangement, but without a sign I am curious ...

Mr. Schalck, can Mr. Ansoms interrupt you?

You give yourself arguments to refute your own statement. I have been informed about the royal decree that now exists, and the traffic sign, with the administration, with people who should know it, and with some traffic experts. They agreed unanimously that, if such a road sign is developed nationally, it is not notified or negotiated within the Convention, it would not apply to foreign truck drivers.

I know that if we had chosen to include it in the Technical Vehicle Act, foreign trucks would for now fall outside it. At least there were Belgian trucks. Now you have nothing compared to foreign trucks and very little or nothing compared to domestic trucks. After all, the sign will only be placed in a very limited number of places, the check is almost zero and the fine that the minister binds to it is a common breach of 50 euros. You must then tell me what the effect of such a sign will be for the one who absolutely wants to drive with a cruise control system, regardless of whether it is a Belgian or a foreigner.

Colleague, it is my firm conviction that it will also apply to the foreign, so in that regard I absolutely do not worry. As for the scope of application, let us also be honest with each other: the cruise control in trucks is not a problem in the built container. There it is not used, there are also much fewer head-to-tail rides, and the risk that one loses his attention because one follows the same path for hours is much less. The problem is on highways. I think the thousands of signs you’re forecasting will not be needed either. I think the board can indeed be used freely and if there is a problem, it can be solved.

There has also been a reference to the views of Febiac which actually says that it has not yet been unquestionably established that cruise control would be the cause of those accidents. Allow me, however, to emphasize that in this regard I believe that we live in a reverse world. It is perfectly possible that manufacturers today install systems that apparently do not require extensive studies to demonstrate their safety and their contribution to road safety. If a government then wants to do the opposite, doubts those systems and therefore only wants to ban them, that government should have extensive studies to counteract or counteract such system. I believe that the sector is at least at the top of that, and that we need to think seriously about it, even with the advanced systems. During the hearings, for my part, it was clear from the sector that even the advanced systems that exist today do not offer a solution in Belgium. That was not a green boy, not a traffic expert who came to say that, but the Volvo manufacturer who actually said that it is dangerous above eighty kilometers per hour, just like when traffic is closed. This means that the implementation of the system in Belgium is always dangerous.

Colleagues, as regards the second point of ISA, I think the benefits and potential of ISA are clear. In terms of road safety, it can make us all drive slower together. However, excessive speed is still one of the main causes of accidents and ⁇ of serious accidents. The statistics are what it is and maybe we can see there percentages of speeds that fluctuate around 30% or 40%. In the case of fatal accidents or accidents with very serious injuries, this increases exponentially. ISA can also contribute to the environment. A number of studies and the pilot projects that have been conducted show that they contribute to the comfort of the road user, to the comfort of the driver. First, the driver should pay more attention to the road. Secondly, for the sake of those who are skeptical and would think that it is only so to punish drivers or restrict them in their freedom, the pilot project that has been conducted in Ghent has very consciously sought out opponents of ISA who wanted to collaborate on that project.

People who were known to be opposed were called and asked to cooperate with the project. Well, 75% of those who were opposed want the project to continue and want to keep the ISA in their car today. Three quarters of them.

It is also not an anti-car, Mr. Monfils. You are mistaken. Volvo is fully involved in this project. I cannot imagine that Volvo would be an anti-car. The Volvo driver installed the system. The rector of the University of Ghent has installed it. The VLD vessels that were responsible for Mobility during the previous legislature are actually the ones that put it on the rails. The sp.a. ships have completed it. Those people have it in their car, they have the role of example in Ghent and do not hesitate to do so. Their

The technical progress is clear. A country such as Sweden, for example, which is at the forefront in Europe in terms of road safety, took the option to make this system compulsory for everyone in all Swedish cars by 2015. I think it’s better to follow the best of the class than to always look behind us in Europe and sometimes be satisfied that there are two or three other countries slightly worse than ourselves. Their

Hence, colleagues, the importance of pilot projects such as those in Gent has been one. Specifically for some blue excellence: ISA is not punishment. I hope that the colleagues De Padt and Daems will also be able to convince them of the importance of ISA, just in terms of road safety and comfort, and that they will collaborate on the project that will also start in Brussels. In the current state of affairs, I think that a half-open system is the worst we can go. After all, on the technical level, there needs to be further development because standards need to be developed in Europe. Their

Finally, I agree with a number of colleagues who have said that ISA today can ⁇ not replace control and enforcement that needs to be further strengthened today. We must dare to go further in the classical discussion. We all hope that the system will be perfected by 2015. Replacing it today would ⁇ be dangerous.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the speakers for their remarks and for the very constructive debate held in the committee. I would like to get into a few things.

In any case, the introduction of the traffic sign on the prohibition of the use of the cross-speed controller has the great advantage that it does not discriminate between domestic and foreign carriers. I see no argument at all — but really no one — to assume that this prohibition would not apply to foreign drivers. On the contrary. We have — a very clear reference to this has been made — perfectly followed all the rules in this regard.

The international conventions of Vienna and Geneva stipulate that consensus is necessary. Such consensus shall be deemed to have been achieved if other Member States do not present counterarguments or negative arguments or if there are no contradictions with requests from other Member States wishing to develop a board that claims the contrary.

We consulted the International Secretariat of the Geneva and Vienna Conventions. Based on the guidelines given by the International Secretariat, we announced the Belgian initiative to all colleagues at the CEMT meeting in Paris on 5 April. In agreement with the International Secretariat of the Geneva and Vienna Conventions, this week I send a letter from myself to the relevant international Conventions to communicate the new traffic sign. Thus, both the discussion and the written announcement took place.

For the sake of clarity, this is not a general or permanent prohibition of use across the entire territory, but a local prohibition of use that can be installed by the road operator according to local needs, including in circumstances that can lead to dangerous situations and where one wishes to prohibit the use of the cross-speed regulator such as pressure traffic, precipitation, roadwork or in places with a real risk of file formation.

I am willing to confess that the control and enforcement of this matter are not obvious. However, this would have been at least as bad with the already submitted bills. That is why we — at least at this stage — consider that a common offence should be used as a punishment. I would like to emphasize — with regard to the population we have the task of being clear — that there are no arguments to assume that something is not legal. We checked everything. For the foreigners who are listening to us, I would like to say that they are also covered by this new measure.

If the judge would determine from the facts of a road accident that the cruise control or the cruise speed control was still used, the sanctions will, of course, go far beyond the immediate collection applicable to a common infringement. I think it’s important that people remember that. This measure quickly came to the express request of a large majority in this Parliament and also of a large part of the sector. I think we have responded to this question very quickly and hopefully efficiently. The Royal Decree is effective from May 1st and we will apply it as well.

The discussion is close. The discussion is closed.

Plus personne ne peut prendre la parole pour la proposition de loi n° 138/1. No other speakers may be registered for the bill no. 138 of 1.

The vote on the rejection proposal will take place subsequently. The vote on the rejection proposal will take place later.

We will continue to discuss the proposal for resolution No. 229/5. The text adopted by the committee serves as the basis for the discussion.