Projet de loi modifiant la loi relative à la police de la circulation routière, coordonnée le 16 mars 1968 en ce qui concerne les délais en matière de récidive par les infractions de roulage.
General information ¶
- Authors
- CD&V Leen Dierick, Nahima Lanjri, Nathalie Muylle, Jef Van den Bergh, Liesbeth Van der Auwera, Stefaan Vercamer, Servais Verherstraeten
- Submission date
- Oct. 21, 2010
- Official page
- Visit
- Status
- Adopted
- Requirement
- Simple
- Subjects
- offence limitation of legal proceedings traffic regulations aggravating circumstances road traffic
Voting ¶
- Voted to adopt
- Groen CD&V Vooruit Ecolo LE PS | SP ∉ Open Vld N-VA LDD MR 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 ¶
July 19, 2011 | Plenary session (Chamber of representatives)
Full source
President André Flahaut ⚙
I do not see Mr. and Vandeput. I am referring to his written report.
Jef Van den Bergh CD&V ⚙
Mr. Speaker, colleagues, a few weeks ago there was a large interview in the newspaper with police judge Peter D’Hondt, following a number of serious road accidents. One of the points he then cited in his rhetoric on how traffic could be made safer, sent with from the police courts, was about the repeat deadlines for serious violations eligible for recidive. This is exactly what is discussed in the present bill.
The deadlines for speaking of recidive are still different today depending on the infringement. For major infringements of the traffic law, a repeat period of three years applies, but for other serious infringements, such as driving without a valid driver's license, only a period of one year applies. That is just one example; in the explanation to the bill there are several others.
Given the significant impact of recidive – we can be convinced that a large part of road safety on our roads is created by a small group of hard-learned drivers – its approach is essential to take significant steps forward in our road safety. Also in the interests of uniformity and clarity, it is in our opinion appropriate to determine all terms on the same number of years. We propose through our bill to fix the term to three years.
The discussion in the committee, which, by the way, had already begun during the previous legislature and which has been resumed during this legislature, went smoothly. The hearings with the police judges, even during the previous legislature, showed that there is a very large support for this proposal. This was also demonstrated in the voting in the committee, where the proposal was unanimously approved, for which I would like to thank all political groups.
We hope to have once again made a small contribution to a safer traffic on our roads.
Steven Vandeput N-VA ⚙
Mr. Speaker, on behalf of my group, I can say that we will fully support this bill and for three reasons. It makes things simpler, clearer, and in a sense it is also stricter.
In the implementation of this law, communication to the general public will be important; not only was improvement needed in the area of the penalty, but this bill must also have a preventive effect.
Tanguy Veys VB ⚙
Mr. Speaker, I join the previous speakers in their positive appreciation of the present bill. I think this addresses an anomaly in the legislation.
In the past, it was difficult to explain why recurrence of certain infringements had a three-year term, while in other cases, such as speed breaches, ghost races, driving without a driver’s license or without having a driver’s license on the bag, a term of only one year.
What is the difference between already very strict action and the problem of the recidive? Everyone makes a mistake sometimes, but recidive means that it doesn’t last at once. In such a problem of traffic and road safety, it is useful and desirable that the bar for everyone, mayor or ordinary citizen, is at the same height.