Proposition 51K2836

Projet de loi modifiant les lois coordonnées du 16 mars 1968 relatives à la police de la circulation routière.

General information ¶

Submitted by

PS | SP MR Open Vld Vooruit Purple Ⅰ

Submission date

Jan. 8, 2007

Official page

Visit

Status

Adopted

Requirement

Simple

Subjects

driving licence highway code road safety traffic regulations road traffic

Voting ¶

Voted to adopt

Vooruit Ecolo LE PS | SP Open Vld 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. 8, 2007 | Plenary session (Chamber of representatives)

Full source

Mr. Speaker, Mr. Minister, colleagues, the Infrastructure Committee discussed the present bill on 17 and 24 January of this year.

The draft law amending the coordinated laws on the road traffic police ensures that the expiration of the right to drive must be declared if a driver commits a serious offence during the first two years after obtaining his driver’s license.

The following offences are eligible for the expiration of the right to drive: alcohol and drunkenness in traffic, offences of the second, third or fourth degree, drugs in traffic, having a radar detector on board, causing traffic accidents with dead or serious injuries, recurrence, driving without a driving license, flight crime, exceeding the permitted speed by more than 30 kilometers per hour and exceeding the permitted maximum speed by more than 20 kilometers per hour in a built container, zone 30 or residential area.

Colleagues, the original bill only spoke of a term of one year. During the discussion, however, it became clear that several factions wanted to extend that term by one year. A amendment was submitted. It was approved by ten votes against two.

The law gives the judge the possibility to make the restoration of steering dependent on the success of the practical or theoretical driving exam. The Minister of Mobility clarified that the judge can make passing a practical or theoretical recovery exam or both mandatory. The State Council confirmed that the term 'or' in this case implies that the judge can also require both recovery examinations.

The entire draft was unanimously adopted in the Infrastructure Committee.

For further details, I would like to refer to the written report.

Can I speak on behalf of my group?

If Mr. Van den Bergh doesn’t mind that, you can.

Mr. Speaker, colleagues, the legislature wants to give a very strong signal to new drivers to be extra cautious when they enter the traffic. We are convinced that this signal can count on widespread support in society.

In addition, the recovery of steering will be made dependent on passing the practical or theoretical exam. We believe that the link to recovery exams provides an important pedagogical added value to the bill.

Young drivers are indeed, unfortunately, overrepresented in accident statistics. However, I would like to say that this is not always due to carelessness or irresponsible driving behavior. New drivers usually have too little driving experience. The obligation to pass a rehabilitation exam must therefore be seen for them primarily as an opportunity to pursue training.

The VLD stresses that this bill cannot be seen apart from the reform of driving training, which has been in force since 1 September. The model of free guidance has been eased to give the candidate driver the opportunity to gain more driving experience. For us, the logical consequence of a more liberal driving training is therefore that a greater responsibility is required from the driver himself when he enters the track. For us, VLD, this bill is actually the logical conclusion of the reform of the driving training.

It is absolutely not intended to target young or new drivers in traffic from now on. Because unfortunately, colleagues, we are confronted daily with many other forms of irresponsible traffic behavior, which are completely separate from the age of the offender or from the time since the offender has a driver’s license in his pocket. In this regard, I think in the first place – the colleagues in the Infrastructure Committee will know that this is one of my stick horses – about the crimes involving flight crimes involving wounded. Also for those violations, the expiration of the right to send must be declared and its restoration for the VLD must be absolutely linked to the success of psychological recovery examinations.

The VLD bill on this subject is now under discussion in the committee and I hope it can be submitted here for voting soon. The VLD will approve this draft law at a later vote.

Thank you, Mrs Vautmans. Mr. Van den Bergh, you are the next. Who will sign up for the general discussion? No one ? Then I close this after the intervention of Mr Van den Bergh. You have the word, colleague.

Mr. Speaker, colleagues, Mr. Minister, the bill that is voted today should have actually been the cherry on the cake, the cake of the widely announced reform of the driving training. Today, there is not much talk about cake. We believe that the whole reform of driving training has turned out to be an abuse, unbearable for anyone who is seriously concerned about road safety.

A reform of the road to the driving license so sought by many young people was and is indeed necessary. When we find that young drivers are up to four times more likely to be involved in accidents and that of all new drivers one in three is involved in an accident in the first year after obtaining the driving license, it should be a challenge for each of us to work on finding a safe way to bring those young drivers into traffic.

When the government and the minister anticipated the reform of driving training, we were hopeful. Unfortunately, from the first start, the mistake went wrong. Before starting such a reform, one could expect that ambitious goals will be pushed forward. I think, for example, of better training and an exam, so that new drivers can be safer in traffic.

But what has been shown? Traffic safety did not appear to be the priority objective of the whole reform. The goals that were pushed forward were easier and cheaper. At a time when a few hundred young people still leave their lives in traffic every year, Minister Landuyt comes up with a reform aimed at making it easier and cheaper. That and passant the driving schools are destroyed, is well taken for this minister.

Easier and cheaper, beautiful goals for a minister, responsible for Traffic Safety. We believe that it is possible to expect deadlines for a reform, based on the objectives. Which end dates for driving training were pushed forward remains a big mystery.

Also the next step in the reform process, the translation into a quality driving exam, has hardly received the attention of the minister. The manoeuvres have been shifted from the closed terrain to the public road. For the rest, the examination centers only have to see how they put together a good exam. That this leads to little guarantees of equal treatment of candidate drivers in the different examination centers is clear, but clearly not a priority concern for the Minister;

What is left? A reform, or better disguising the driving training in order to be cheaper and easier. Is this new driving training actually cheaper? No, the free driving training is just continuing to exist, fortunately, but, and for those who want to take a professional driving training, an hour still costs at least as much.

Has the new driving training become easier? Per ⁇ so, as a set of conditions for both the free guidance and for the post-training internship period are simply deleted. Whether this will make it easier for candidate drivers to obtain their driving licenses, remains the question. It may still be a little too early to make a thorough assessment of the first exams new style, but it seems strongly that fewer candidate drivers will succeed on a first attempt of the driving exam.

Is the new driving training better? The great slogan with which the minister was drawn on the campaign was "More Experience". It’s a beautiful principle, but it’s actually spraying sand in the eyes. What happened to the experience building? The internship period was simply shortened from nine or six to three months. The [...]

Mr Van den Bergh, go on.

Mr Van den Bergh, you have a special relationship with Minister Landuyt. I want to make them as good as possible.

Mr. Van den Eynde, you are an experienced expert in this area.

The internship period was thus simply shortened from nine or six months to three months, with which I provide only one proof of the clear quality reduction of the current driving training.

The future will show it. Per ⁇ it is no longer the current minister’s concern. Today, however, we are already convinced that the current reform represents a step backward for the road safety of thousands of young people.

Mr. Speaker, colleagues, Mr. Minister, I come to the point – the cherry on the cake – on which we must vote today, namely the two-year trial period for beginner drivers. However, one cannot be seen separately from the other.

Mr. Minister, in itself we agree with the principle of braking in the first period after obtaining the driving license. The figures I mentioned later show that many new drivers are involved in accidents and that the braking principle could therefore be a good thing.

In part, the high rate of accidents among young people is obviously due to a lack of experience. This will not improve if the period is shortened to three months. However, it is also partly related to self-exaggeration. It is about the self-exaggeration of a limited group of young drivers who, once they get the certificate in their hands, think that they can drive perfectly, which sometimes leads to the literal and figurative removal of all brakes.

Therefore, it makes sense to introduce a trial period, which brakes too enthusiastic drivers. We also see many examples of such a trial period abroad.

However, we ask whether the present text is an optimal form. When a beginner driver commits a serious offence, he must pass his exam again.

In itself, it is a stick behind the door. The provision may also encourage young people to think equally carefully before committing serious offenses during the first years behind the wheel. On the other hand, with the repeat of the exam, nothing is done to address a possible behavioral problem.

Collega Vautmans also pointed out that serious offenders should in principle be able to be up-trained. Simply passing the driving exam again is not further training. Therefore, I think that there is still need for supplements. An additional form of training or an additional form of further training may not be eligible because it was arranged cheaper and easier.

Mr. Minister, in principle we agreed with the idea of the trial period, but the cherry does not taste really good to us. Especially since the cake on which the cherry was to end has become an abuse, CD&V wants to clearly distance itself from the whole reform of the driving training. That is why we will ultimately vote against.

So far I have not heard any response from Minister Landuyt, but it is not excluded that it will come.

I have a question to Mr. Van den Bergh. Mr. Van den Bergh, I think you voted in the committee because I delivered a report and the draft was unanimously approved in the committee. You will vote against today. I wanted to clarify that.

Mr. Speaker, I have not mentioned it, but the discussion of this draft law in the committee has again taken place in a chaotic way, to euphemistically express it. On the second day, the core of the case could no longer be discussed. At the first discussion, I think, the piece was available only 24 hours before it. This is one of the reasons why it was not discussed at the time. I have already said that we agreed in principle, but the whole is so opposed to us that we will eventually vote against.

Mr. Speaker, I understand that Mr. Van den Bergh eventually changes his point of view.

Is this the subject of which I have written to you a pastoral letter?

The [...]