Proposition 51K1882

Proposition de résolution relative à la création d'un Institut d'analyse des accidents de la route.

General information ¶

Authors

MR François Bellot, Valérie De Bue
Open Vld Guido De Padt, Hilde Vautmans
PS | SP Véronique Ghenne, Annick Saudoyer

Submission date

June 22, 2005

Official page

Visit

Status

Adopted

Requirement

Simple

Subjects

resolution of parliament road safety

Voting ¶

Voted to adopt

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

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.

Discussion ¶

Feb. 1, 2007 | Plenary session (Chamber of representatives)

Full source

Mr Ludo Van Campenhout, rapporteur, refers to his written report.

Mr. Speaker, with all respect, but you say that Mr. Van Campenhout refers to his report. I have not seen Mr. Van Campenhout. You may be telepatically connected to him. I regret the fact that this happens here regularly, especially because in the Infrastructure Committee one is always there as the chickens to ensure that ⁇ no member of Parliament of the Flemish Interest who volunteers to make the report can do this but is always present in this room. I regret that and dare to advocate that in the future the rapporteur would always be here, or at least that there is a valid reason for absence.

I may have been somewhat quick, but I have long had the habit when I see no one, to consider this as a reference to the report.

This is not the first time. Fortunately, Mr. Van Campenhout is here and can report, but this is not the first time this happens. I have seen several times that there is a real obstacle in this area in the Infrastructure Committee.

You have a point, if I look at it here. This has been discussed in three committee meetings, although I do not dare to say whether this lasted the entire meeting, because I cannot know. This is not a large report, but a relatively short report.

This is a principle issue.

I understand you, Mr Mortelmans.

Mr. Van Campenhout, I was a bit quick to declare, following our telepathic meeting, that you would refer to your written report. You are present now. and Quid?

I do not understand the nervousness of Mr. Mortelmans. I see him regularly in the Infrastructure Committee. I know he comes from Lier. Per ⁇ he has had frustrations recently, especially a few weeks ago. I refer to the written report because it is optimally drawn up.

So I was still on the right wavelength with colleague Van Campenhout. The general discussion is now opened and Mr De Padt is speaking in the general discussion for the second time.

The number of victims on our roads has been declining for several years. Since the introduction of the traffic barometer, there has been a steady decline in the number of fatal accidents month after month. Therefore, no one can deny that the quality and especially the period of availability of traffic statistics has improved considerably since recently. However, once the registration of road accidents has been completed, the following crucial question arises: Why and under what circumstances do accidents occur? We must admit that little progress has been made in this area and that the investigation into the causes of traffic accidents in Belgium, ⁇ in comparison with a number of neighboring countries such as the Netherlands, is still in its infancy.

We hope that the proposal that is now put to the vote will lead to greater awareness and a profound change of mentality in this area. Scientific knowledge on road accidents is essential in order to carry out effective reforms in the transport policy, with the aim of further reducing the number of road traffic casualties. Traffic accidents are, by definition, a complex conjunction of circumstances in which both behavioral and vehicle-related and infrastructure-related factors are identified that contribute to a greater or lesser extent to the occurrence of an accident and its severity.

Unfunded measures therefore often act counterproductively and cause a lot of annoyance and aversion among the road users to whom they apply. We must dare to admit that we in the Committee on Infrastructure and Traffic have also been confronted several times in recent years with proposals and reforms that were not always equally thoroughly supported, precisely by a lack of knowledge.

Take, for example, the recent reform of driving training. It seems to be firm that the success rate for the driving exam increases as the driving experience increases. Nevertheless, a real welles-nietes debate has emerged about which training model, either through the driving school or through free guidance, offers the highest stroke rates and minimizes the chance of a road accident after obtaining the driving license. To be honest, we must admit that there are currently no unambiguous or reliable figures that show an unambiguous relationship between the driving training model and involvement in accidents. So let us urgently work on this instead of repeating the discussion.

We also consider, for example, the involvement of trucks in road accidents. Both a ban on the classic cruise control systems and a generalized speed reduction were already pushed forward, without knowing exactly why the number of accidents with trucks is on the rise line.

To overcome this gap, the resolution calls for the establishment of an independent policy-supporting Institute for Accident Analysis, composed of independent investigators, charged with objective investigation into the causes and circumstances of road accidents.

They will be tasked with developing action programmes and targets aimed at avoiding future accidents as much as possible with a shared responsibility between road users, vehicle and infrastructure as a starting point.

Mr De Padt, Mr Mortelmans points out that there is no minister present.

Mr. President, I hear Mr. De Padt address a question to the Government, rightly. A resolution is a question to the government. I can’t get rid of the impression that the ministers went on Easter vacation early.

It escaped my attention. Mr. De Padt, I hear that the Minister is coming.

One only being you lack and the universe is depopulated. You were near, but not here, Mr. Minister.

It is essential that the Government also takes the necessary measures for a smoother and wider cooperation of the judicial services, the police, the medical world and the insurance sector on the planned pilot projects and the operation of the accident analysis service. It is important, however, that the independence of the investigation remains guaranteed and that the underlying causes of the accident are central. Currently, investigations initiated on behalf of judicial authorities or insurance companies are primarily aimed at reimbursing the damage caused by the accident and establishing the legal liability. However, these investigations do not meet the demand for an independent technical investigation, the results of which say something about the causes of accidents and provide points of reference for the possible improvement of legislation.

Of course, we also ask that the Government, in the further implementation of its traffic policy, will take due account of the results and recommendations of the Institute.

Finally, the Government should also encourage further cooperation with other Member States at the European level and, as far as possible, strive for a common methodology and strategy for the investigation of road accidents. This proposal not only implements an explicit recommendation from the State-General for Traffic Safety at the Belgian level, but also fits within the implementation of the European Action Programme on Traffic Safety, with which the European Commission committed to halving the number of road deaths by 2010.

We are convinced that this proposal can count on a very large social support. Both weak road users, associations of motorists and the professional road freight sector have been demanding for years for more fundamental knowledge about the causes of road accidents.

This will further support the credibility of traffic policy among citizens.

Last year, the Minister of Mobility already gave a first initiative to bring together experts around the so-called Belgian Accident Research Team, abbreviated BART, in the belly of the BIVV. We believe that this project is only a first, modest step in the right direction. In the long run, colleagues, accident analysis from a policy-supporting institution should become the cornerstone of traffic policy. We therefore urge the Government to implement this resolution promptly.

Mr. Speaker, Mr. Minister, colleagues, the Flemish Interest of course fully agrees with this resolution. It has long been a demand from our party, which we have also included in the program following the 2004 Flemish Parliament elections.

We have only a few concerns. That this resolution is approved does not mean that everything is in pots and pots. This resolution must, of course, still be put into practice. The institute will come. This is already underway, but special attention should be paid to the cooperation of all the services involved. I think of the court, the insurance industry, the medical world, and so on. That will be the big challenge for the future.

I have a second comment, Mr. Speaker. So we agree in principle, but I note that, together with me, several other colleagues from the other political parties present here are not happy with the level at which we are going to organize this. So I express myself, as far as my party is concerned, ⁇ gently. Mobility in general and road safety in particular, belongs to our home at the regional level. Flanders should be responsible for this. I am pleased to note that colleagues from other political parties also consider that the federal level is not the right level to organize all that. Therefore, I find it ⁇ regrettable that the competent minister, Minister Landuyt, who is constantly knocking on his chest that he is a federalist and regionalist, this legislature has failed to regionalize road safety.

What have I established in the last four years? We are now reaching the end of this legislature. I have determined that the French speakers are competent in the affairs contained in the government agreement. I think of the Francorchamps Act and the export permits for weapons. However, the minimum requirement of Flanders on road safety remained in the bottom box.

I regret this, but nevertheless we will support this resolution with full conviction.