Proposition 53K1004

Projet de loi modifiant l'arrêté royal du 1er décembre 1975 portant règlement général sur la police de la circulation routière et de l'usage de la voie publique afin d'autoriser les cyclistes à franchir dans certains cas les feux de signalisation.

General information ¶

Authors

PS | SP Anthony Dufrane, André Frédéric, Karine Lalieux, Linda Musin
Vooruit Karin Temmerman

Submission date

Jan. 11, 2011

Official page

Visit

Status

Adopted

Requirement

Simple

Subjects

two-wheeled vehicle highway code road safety traffic regulations road traffic

Voting ¶

Voted to adopt

Groen Vooruit Ecolo LE PS | SP Open Vld N-VA LDD

Abstained from voting

CD&V VB

Party dissidents ¶

• Peter Luykx (CD&V) voted to adopt.
• Josy Arens (LE) 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.

Discussion ¶

July 19, 2011 | Plenary session (Chamber of representatives)

Full source

Mr. Speaker, if you do not see any major disadvantage, I will refer to the very complete written report.

Since there was a large consensus in the committee, I will keep my intervention short.

We all agree that road safety should be the primary starting point in all traffic rules. This is, of course, also the case in this bill. The safety of other road users and the cyclist must not be compromised. That was the starting point of this bill and of the full discussion.

I understand very well the restraint to this measure, because we are all raised with the rule that one does not drive through the red. This is still the case in this bill: by red one does not drive, unless there is an indication that it is allowed. This indication is not a general rule but rather an exception. This measure has been in place in the Netherlands and Germany for a very long time. This shows that right-wing by red for cyclists can be applied in many places without compromising road safety. The French authorities have initially waited for a pilot project in Bordeaux and Strasbourg. Then they also decided to make this test a rule and to pour it into a law applicable in other cities. Nantes is currently working on the implementation of this measure.

It is clear that this proposal is only feasible and can only be applied under specific circumstances. It is therefore up to the road manager to check whether the intersection is the right intersection where right through red for cyclists can happen. The law also states very clearly that other road users should not be hindered.

If we want to do something to address the problem of mobility and traffic viability in our cities and municipalities, then we will have to take many measures that encourage the alternatives to the use of cars. Those alternatives are, especially in cities, walking, cycling and using public transportation. This measure is part of a policy aimed at encouraging the use of bicycles. If we make it easier for bicycle traffic to flow through and if such a thing can be safe, why should we not do it? It has been proven in the countries around us that it can be perfectly done without endangering the other road user.

I hope that this bill will be approved tomorrow. Many cyclists will be grateful.

Mr. Speaker, colleagues, contrary to the impression that Mrs. Temmerman gave, the consensus in the committee was not total. Our group finds it difficult for this bill to be put to the vote in this way.

When it comes to the traffic viability of our cities and municipalities, it is a good thing to develop as many measures as possible to promote and make cycling more attractive. From the STOP principle, however, we must first pay attention to the pedestrian. For this reason, we have changed the word “drivers” in the bill through an amendment to “road users”, so that pedestrians will ⁇ retain their priority.

Attention, therefore, to the pedestrians, to the cyclists as well, but in a good and constructive way. At the first discussion of the present bill on 17 May, I asked how to explain this to the children. How do we explain to children that in certain cases they can get through the red light? We received responses and responses from the BIVV and the cyclist organisations during the hearings. I obtained information from the Family Union and also there it was stated that this does not necessarily have to be an educational problem. However, I still have the question of how to explain this to children. We must face this difficulty as we continue with this measure.

In addition, this is a bill that, regardless of how it is turned or turned, is contrary to the Vienna Convention. All the arguments are mentioned above and I know that this rule is applied in other countries as well. The Vienna Convention has already been “underestimated” on several points. In fact, one can ask whether the Vienna Convention and the Vienna Convention are still worth that much. I deeply regret this, because at a time when Europe becomes more important and traffic becomes more international, there is a need for more harmonisation of all traffic rules at European level.

I think more Vienna Conventions, more Vienna Conventions are needed, so that the traffic rules in Belgium are harmonised with the other European countries. This also applies to the other countries which, in the meantime, have also allowed all sorts of exceptions to that convention and to that convention. I regret that, contrary to a harmonisation that is actually desirable, we are moving in the opposite direction. This bill also contributes to this.

The next point is that here with a bill a KB is amended. This is not the first time, but in my opinion it is legislatively not the best way to work. In the Infrastructure Committee, a lot of work is done with KBs; the entire Road Code is a KB. Parliamentarians, of course, want to take initiatives regarding the Road Code. We had more or less found a way to do this. We could discuss such bills in the presence of the Secretary of State or the Minister and ask him to convert the idea out of that bill into the KB within a certain period, whether or not explicitly written in that law. This is the case with Ms. Temmerman’s bill, which we will discuss later. This has been done in a very constructive way.

Unfortunately this did not happen here. I know the causes of it. A number of strategic mistakes were made during the negotiations. I regret this. We now have a law that, once the period of evocation of the Senate has expired, can go to the Belgian Staatsblad and contain a traffic sign that is actually a copy of the French traffic sign. Is this the right way to make legislation?

I have a lot of questions and concerns about the present bill. The basic idea, especially the encouragement of cycling at crossings where this is permissible, is however praiseworthy. For the presenters, however, it is important to emphasize that these are cross points where this is indicated and not everywhere, as one could mistakenly think by the impression that is now gradually generated about them following the media reports. In certain crossings, however, I think this should be possible. I wonder if we are doing the right thing on the legislative level.

There have also been some comments from the legislative services. We have not asked for advice from the State Council. This might not have been bad. I have serious doubts about the legal impact of the text that precedes. We will not approve the bill.

Mr. Speaker, I think, on the contrary, that this measure is a good measure for road safety and mobility in general because it gives more place to cyclists. However, the more cyclists are favored, the more they are on the public road, the more they are safe and the more the bike can become a credible alternative mode of travel.

The concerns mentioned by the previous speaker were met during the discussion, in particular by improving the text with the amendments that were voted. It has also been sufficiently explained that royal decrees were often modified in this way. Therefore, nothing contradicts what we legislate in this sense.

I would like to highlight two things. This measure is not a general measure. It is a faculty left to road managers to attach this sign. I have actually already been able to read some press articles that give the feeling that this is a general measure by which, from now on, all cyclists will be able to cross the red light to turn right. This is not at all the purpose of the proposal. This is a possibility left to each of the roadside managers who will decide on a case-by-case basis whether, yes or not, this type of panel can be attached.

It would be useful to organize in the future training dedicated specifically to these railway managers. We audited the cyclists’ associations. Some of them gave some examples on Brussels where this measure can be developed but also demonstrated counter-examples where this measure is quite impossible.

On the other hand, another element is highlighted by the IBSR, namely the fact that this measure may not have sufficient support in the population. Developing a rule that goes counter-current actually always requires time to be adopted. Targeted information campaigns, aimed at cyclists as well as all public road users, are necessary to ensure that this measure is appropriate and well understood by the public. This is also the case in other countries where pilot experiments have been conducted.

Establishing a parallel with SULs (limited unique senses), as mentioned by cyclist associations, helps to better understand. Since 2007, my municipality has widely developed SULs, a measure that is not applied everywhere, because its application is left to the free choice of the railway manager. Personally, I find that after a period when the population hardly accepted it, the measure is gaining ground: it is increasingly perceived in the last few years because it really participates in a general mobility policy by creating cycling paths in cities.

That is why my group will support this proposal submitted by our colleagues from the PS.

This bill has sparked a lot of debate in recent weeks. I think we need to go deeper into what exactly is on the table. This legislation seems to be against our traffic culture. That is why our group has considered it critically from the point of view that one should pay attention to such things.

Let’s go over the text and see what really is on the table. What we want to do is allow the road operator in some cases at certain intersections to ensure that cyclists, unlike the motorised traffic, can turn to the right, while the light on red stands for the motorised vehicles. Specific rules of priority should be used, which are regulated through a priority board.

In my long term there are four elements.

First, let the road managers take action. In this case, the regions and the municipalities, which at this time already have the responsibility to create good traffic situations and to ensure that both cyclists and pedestrians and motorists deal with those traffic situations in the safest way possible. It is up to road operators to ensure that this rule is applied only in places where it can be safe. I think we can have confidence that the regions and municipalities will carefully handle this.

Second, the passage of red traffic lights. Why do we want that? We know that there are traffic situations where the bike path runs to the right. There is a red light specially for motorists. A cyclist can actually pass through it conflict-free. It is very difficult to explain to a cyclist why he has to wait in such situations. In fact, he is waiting there because the cars have to wait. We now want to ensure that traffic regulation can be better enforced, just as we choose to adjust the road zone to a speed limit when building roads.

These are generally accepted principles, therefore this could also be in place here.

Third, priority rules must be applied. This is a point that was not included in the original proposal, but that is very important for my group because it is the only way to apply it. If one ensures that those cyclists have to give priority to all the others who are there, then one has a arrangement that ensures that this can be done in a safe way. In the end, we needed two amendments, in cooperation with Mr Van den Bergh, in order to write out a good arrangement. I think the arrangement is even better than what exists at the moment, but I will return to that soon.

The last point is that we choose to do so with a priority board. A priority sign is important because in this way we actually indicate, every time a cyclist passes, that there is a priority applied, that one must give his priority and that one must pay attention.

If we put all that together, we still read in the press that we are playing with the lives of pedestrians and cyclists and that this is madness. A comparison of this proposal with what is already stated in the Road Code only makes one difference, namely that we choose to use a priority board. The Road Code stipulates that a separate light may be placed at those intersections so that one can still pass, at the time when the others have red, even at the time when the intersecting traffic has green. That is, this already exists, with the exception that the priority is not properly arranged at all.

At that time Minister Landuyt revised the priority of the right. He changed the world-famous passage about “regularly coming from the right” into “the priority of the right.” At that time, this has not changed. In this case, it is still stated that priority should be given to all drivers who regularly come from other directions, which means that we are actually going to carry out an effort here. We ensure that the current situation is applicable in practice, and in a safer way. If one works with that separate light, that is actually a permanent green arrow for the cyclists, then one gives the impression that they have a safe way to pass, while the priority system still exists.

What we do here is to use a priority board that always points the cyclist to that priority rule, so that much more attention is also given to it and that sensitization is made.

When it comes to criticism, we have heard a number of things.

Thus, we have heard that the red light is absolute and that we are now turning there for the first time. However, we also know that the green arrow scheme, which I have just explained, exists not only for cyclists but also for car drivers. These arrows only apply when the light is on red. The absolute character of the light on red is therefore already adjusted at that time. If the green arrow lights, the red light may be ignored, provided that one moves in the direction of the arrow.

The second point is the safety of other road users. I think it is clear that we have developed a scheme that goes beyond what is currently in place, and that is therefore an improvement in that sense. If a road manager wants to take action on the basis of the current article 61, then he can create right for the cyclists by red already at this time, but in a less secure way than we propose here.

Then there is also the Vienna Treaty, as Mr. Van den Bergh has cited. It is true that the proposal is not in accordance with this. In Belgium, we know the bromebooks, popularly referred to as “car without a driving license”. They are also not in accordance with the Vienna Convention, but nobody seems to be concerned about it.

We are talking about making a arrangement that is consistent with the other countries. We will try to decide as unanimously as possible on this traffic regulation. If a system is applied in the north and south as described here, I think we are moving in that direction. In any case, we accept that suggestion.

Finally, we have developed a scheme that allows road managers to use them as a tool in their mobility policies, in those places where they consider it useful and where they think it can be done in a safe way. If we can do this at the same time in a way that is safer than the current regulation, if we do so with a balance, also for the smooth traffic of cyclists, I think we are taking a step in the right direction. That is also why our group will support this proposal.

Mr. Speaker, I would also like to say “Mr. Minister, Mr. Secretary of State,” but I see that the government banks have been empty for a while. We may be lucky with this bill that the secretary of state has already engaged in the press to carry out the loyalty, but for other files the government should be a little more present during the debates.

(without the microphone)

... the number of times that no minister is present here, including for bills. There is always a high point about the autonomy and re-evaluation of Parliament, but a little respect for the government in ongoing affairs should also be. I hope you, as president, will insist on this in the government. They are not paid half. They are still paid full-time. They can be here full-time.

Mr. Speaker, colleagues, I think it is the ambition of every politician to find the proverbial hole in the market. I think we found that today. It has been a long search, but apparently there is still a problem that has been breeding for a very long time.

It has been found that cyclists were not faced with a lack of bike paths, poor road marking or wrong traffic signs. They are also not affected by cars that cut them off the road. No, cyclists especially suffer from the loss of time at red lights. This is evidenced by a study of Test-Buy. Apparently, the delay caused would be 20%. At the top of the list of problems of the cyclists, it rises to 20%.

Then it is the task of the Parliament to do something about it. We are going to do that today with this bill, so that the cyclist who wins 20% and will be on time, maybe not on time with the train. We are stuck every day and receive letters with that heavy complaint from cyclists.

I have been cycling since I was six years old in Gent. The problem of waiting for the red lights frustrates me daily. We will resolve this today.

Very good, but is this a problem?

It reminds me a little of Molière’s Le Malade imaginaire or, for those who take a little lighter reading, Doctor Doxey’s elixir of Lucky Luke. In fact, people are first told that there is a problem, and then come up with the solution. We found it here, cyclists are allowed to drive through a red light.

First and foremost, there are some concerns. This is only a limited number of cases. This option will only be available on a certain number of crossings. Particular attention is paid to Brussels. Per ⁇ it will also apply to Gent, because Mrs. Temmerman has apparently emerged as a spokeswoman for this case. It will only involve a limited number of interventions. If we refer to those 20%, we will have to disappoint the cyclists already.

Also on a second point we must disappoint the cyclists, because this technique will not be applied too much anyway. Everyone knows the basic rules of mathematics. After all, if you turn to the right three times, you return to the point from which you left, even on a large card. Since it is only a right-wing move, I fear that this measure will never reach 20 %. As far as the imagined problem concerns.

Ms. Temmerman has already exposed this problem in the media and has provided the solution. Mrs. Temmerman, I must note, however, that your merit is very limited. The proposal comes from the PS and was submitted to the Chamber in early January. On 12 May, you submitted an amendment to add yourself to this bill. Since then, we have not seen you at the hearing where the problem was addressed. Apparently, you were not aware of this problem. Maybe you stood with your bicycle in front of the red light, that can, of course, too.

Colleagues, a number of points of criticism, already expressed by colleague Van den Bergh, cut wood. However, you should be cautious to approve this proposal simply and passionately. These are comments that do not come from the least. I will later quote the Secretary of State. I also refer to the State Council. The State Council says very clearly that this would be contrary to the International Vienna Convention on Traffic Rules. One can say that it is only a treaty and that there are other matters to be dealt with, but one time a resolution or a bill is approved here precisely because we act in violation of a particular international treaty and the other time that is left blue. It is said, for example, that even those bromebooks are not in accordance with the treaty.

Only on the basis of this bill – which may later become a law – will one get an accident or be involved in it. Mrs Temmerman, if certain judicial proceedings are initiated in that case, I hope that you will also stand on the side of those cyclists and defend your poor legal work.

By the way, the Chamber’s legal service made very justifiable comments and referred, among other things, to the opinion of the State Council. The response to these comments was very poor. The members involved have simply placed them by themselves.

Several comments were also made during the hearings. I refer, among other things, to the BIVV and the VTB-VAB, which have made a number of observations which show very clearly that it is not obvious or logical to approve this measure here today.

After all, VTB-VAB questions whether this principle is reasonable. The common sense of the farmer says that when a cyclist stands in front of the red light and wants to turn to the right, he or she simply descends and goes right through the pedestrian path, after which he or she goes on the bike again. Thus the problem is solved. Apparently, the members do not want that. They apparently want to create the confusing situation in which a driver who sees the green light and thus thinks he is allowed to drive through, suddenly faces on his side with inserting cyclists. Truck drivers often drive, when they do not immediately see a cyclist in front of them, for convenience rather close to the edge of the track.

Anyway, a number of dangerous traffic situations are created, the members of which are apparently not awake here. In this regard too, however, we are in the good hands of Mrs. Temmerman, in order to later defend the interests of the cyclists involved.

One of the arguments given in defense is the commercial speed. The Cyclists’ Federation pointed to commercial speed to justify why waiting for the red light is such a big problem. If we want to describe them, what is the commercial speed? That is the speed in the comparison between the cyclist and the car driver. After stopping, the cyclist must restart on his own, while a car is immediately gone.

Choices must be made. A cyclist will never win a car. We must submit to the laws of physics. A cyclist is only a mechanic driven by his own power and will never win the car, unless it is intended that all cars in the rails and in front of the red lights stop. This means that cyclists can run everywhere. However, I suspect that such a step would be too far.

Colleagues, we have heard several comments, including from our valued but unfortunately absent State Secretary. He was here this morning. I suspect he was pushed into the wrong agenda. Otherwise, he would have been here tonight. Indeed, the Secretary of State also correctly referred to the conflict with the Vienna Convention.

He also pointed out, by the way, that at the end of May – one is of course always quick – advice was requested from the Regions. Well, we are still waiting for that advice from the West. There is a suspicion, but I do not have a glass ball, that the Wests, because ultimately they are the ones who have to realize it on their sideways, are not really asking party, that they are not advocates. We are still waiting for these advice.

Another point is whether the cyclists themselves are aware of the road safety situation in which they are. Ultimately, a cyclist is faced with opposite traffic, will have to enter. In fact, this also increases the risk of accidents.

Collega Van den Bergh also referred to the traffic education aspect. Explain to your own children that red is no longer red, that red can sometimes mean you can drive through. I am afraid that people who have children who go on the track by bicycle, who try to explain a little bit of the basic principles – not only of physics and mathematics, but also of road safety – are facing a very difficult situation.

I also think, by the way, of the comment of Secretary of State Schouppe in connection with the legistic work, in which it was noted that amending a royal decree by a law is ultimately not a good thing. I admit, of course, that a law is still of a more democratic order than a royal decree, but in fact one is putting down a little of the whole of royal decrees in the field of road safety and traffic legislation by now suddenly by a law hunting it through.

One could have perfectly done it through a resolution or simply by waiting for the final vote, but there had to and would be a vote. Last week Thursday, during the plenary session, the committee was also specially convened because it still needed and would be approved for the recess.

Finally, there was also the comment of the Secretary of State, who suggested that he would simply perform it, after which any inaccuracies and comments from the opinions of the Regions could be taken into account. Nor does that happen.

Ladies and gentlemen, it sounds good. You found a problem that apparently did not exist, but suddenly it is there. You have found a solution for it. Please get a patent. You refer to abroad, where it is applied in a number of cases. The traffic situation in countries such as Germany and the Netherlands is different. The bicycle policy in the Netherlands can be difficult to compare with the bicycle policy in Belgium. Therefore, I think there is a very heavy responsibility on your shoulders once this law is passed. I will think twice before I go through a red light.

We are clearly in favor of the principle that is enshrined in the bill. Because, behind the possibility that will now be given to cyclists to cross the red light in certain circumstances, it is first and foremost the will to give cyclists a greater place in the mobility policy. Thanks to this new regulation, they will lose less time during their journey and can thus compete with the car more easily. Yes, it is possible, as the people heard by the commission pointed out. This is a way for the federal state to encourage the use of bicycles in urban environments, alongside the measures taken by the Regions.

The experience of foreign countries – the Netherlands, Germany, France – does not show an increase in the number of accidents at crossroads. The proposed measure, which could constitute a certain harmonisation at the level of four European countries, therefore does not harm security. However, the latitude given to cyclists is framed. It is not about allowing to do everything and anything. Thus, it should be emphasized that allowing to turn to the right at the fire remains first and foremost a possibility that is left to the railway manager. Depending on the infrastructure, traffic, the dangerousness of the crossroads, it will decide to seize the opportunity given to make life easier for cyclists by placing a specific signal under the signalling lights.

Per ⁇ it would be relevant to undertake infrastructure work and encourage, as the IBSR proposes, a cycling track that would pass right of the fire. But we know the cost of such investments and the difficulty of implementing them, especially in urban environments. The legislation we are going to vote for has its full place in the package of measures.

Moreover, when it comes to the framework of the measure, beyond its non-generalized character, the possibility of crossing the fire obviously does not exempt the cyclist from respecting the Road Code. Thus, it must respect the priority of other users engaged in the crossroads and let the pedestrian pass through the green. The text has been amended to avoid any misunderstandings.

In conclusion, I would like, like cyclists’ associations, that the implementation of this text be accompanied by awareness-raising campaigns. It is true that, in our country, the bicycle culture is insufficiently anchored and is not yet shared by all users. It is therefore the responsibility of public actors and cyclists’ associations to engage in it by correctly applying the measure – a positive measure for better urban mobility.

Mr. Speaker, dear colleagues, on 1 January 1991, road managers were allowed, under certain conditions, to establish the limited single directions, the famous SULs in favor of cyclists.

At the time, however, few municipalities have put these provisions into practice. They considered these measures too dangerous. Many saw here a heresy in terms of security. Where the limited single senses have nevertheless been established, accidents have not, however, multiplied. On the contrary! The limited unique senses enhanced the safety of cyclists by allowing direct visual contact with the driver. It would have been necessary to wait until 1 January 2004 to see limited single senses become the rule in one-way streets.

Nowadays, no one thinks of questioning them. This small reminder clearly shows us that changes in mobility mindsets are sometimes long and difficult to integrate. Only a pedagogical work allows the popular adherence indispensable to the success of any project. Fortunately, the mentalities are evolving and it is important to see that the bicycle is seeing a growing success in our cities, even though a certain pro-car conservatism is still felt there.

Dear colleagues, today we have the opportunity to contribute our little stone to improving mobility for all by making life for cyclists a little easier. In big cities such as Brussels, the cyclist is often confronted with signalling lights that extend his journey time and his journeys. Estimates tend to attribute them to a loss of time of almost 20%. Similar to the limited single direction, the right-wing cyclist will therefore clearly enhance the attractiveness of the bike by improving the travel times while improving the safety of these same cyclists.

As for the legitimate question of safety, the experience of many countries shows that reducing the feeling of insecurity on the roads brings new cyclists. The increase in the number of new cyclists produces a critical mass effect, reducing the dangerous nature of the bike, as other users, especially motorists and heavy-duty drivers, expect more to meet cyclists. This is the virtuous circle of using the bicycle.

For example, in Copenhagen, the number of kilometers by bicycle has increased by 40% in the hypercenter in ten years, while in the same time, the number of serious accidents involving a cyclist has decreased from 20 to 25%. Recent Belgian statistics in this area are also favorable, as they show a decrease of more than 60% in the number of bicycle deaths between 2008 and 2009.

Finally, the recent experiments conducted in France and which led to the establishment of the right-wing cyclist turn are unambiguous: in two years of experience in Bordeaux and Strasbourg, there has been no accident.

Today, the Infrastructure Commission has clearly assumed its responsibilities by approving, almost unanimously, this measure in favor of cyclists, thus marking its willingness to promote the use of bicycles.

Since the turn to the right has been the subject of almost unanimity in the committee, I hope that the Secretary of State will review his opinion on this subject and follow us.

From tomorrow, it will be the turn of our colleagues infrastructure managers, whether at the regional, provincial or municipal level, to take their responsibilities and follow in the footsteps of those who have dared to introduce the limited single sense. From tomorrow, they alone will decide whether it is appropriate to allow cyclists to cross the fire safely. In fact, I remind you, this measure is not generalizable to all red lights. This possibility shall be granted on a case-by-case basis and at the discretion of the infrastructure managers. If the latter considers that a crossroads fulfils all the conditions, they will be able to install the pointed triangle created for this purpose.

Cyclists will, of course, have to give priority to pedestrians and drivers coming from their left.

Finally, remember if need was still that it is out of question to allow a cyclist to cross on both sides of a crossroads by cutting the flow of motorists. It is not about putting anyone at risk.

I’m sure, we won’t have, this time, to wait 13 years to see these “turn to right” panels rapidly multiply above the many red lights. And, not unlikely to my colleague Van den Bergh, after Germany, the Netherlands and France, we think that we are talking about a beautiful European harmonization that is being drawn.

In May 2009, 50 European cities, including Brussels and Ghent, signed the Brussels Charter, thus setting a target of at least 15% modal share in bicycles by 2020. The challenge is big, but not impossible. Any action promoting the use of the bicycle can only bring us a little closer to it.