Proposition 53K1403

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, en vue d'inscrire la rue cyclable dans le Code de la route.

General information ¶

Authors

Ecolo Ronny Balcaen
Vooruit Karin Temmerman

Submission date

April 27, 2011

Official page

Visit

Status

Adopted

Requirement

Simple

Subjects

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

Voting ¶

Voted to adopt

Groen CD&V Vooruit Ecolo LE PS | SP Open Vld LDD MR

Abstained from voting

∉ N-VA VB

Party dissidents ¶

• Siegfried Bracke (N-VA) voted to adopt.
• Peter Luykx (CD&V) 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

Mrs De Block returns to her written report.

As you just said, the proposal was rejected by the committee. For more details, refer to the written report.

I will be brief again, even given the advanced hour.

Colleagues, in the bill on right-wing red driving, it has already been discussed: if we want to ⁇ the Millennium Goals, then we will have to work on a sustainable mobility policy. A sustainable mobility policy means that we will need to promote alternatives to the car. The poor air quality in our cities and municipalities is very often largely due to the abundant use of cars. It is very clear that in an urban context, cycling, alongside walking and public transportation, is the most suitable alternative to the car. Bicycling is the most efficient, it is not polluting and it also contributes to greater traffic viability.

Therefore, it should not be surprising that the regions, the cities and municipalities and the provinces are making a lot of efforts to develop a network of area-wide cycling routes. However, we must also admit that this is not always easy in our densely populated country, ⁇ not if we want to make those cycling route networks area-wide. We very often notice that cycling routes stop when one enters a city or municipality or that cycling paths suddenly narrow and eventually end up in a street where there is no cycling path because that street is too narrow to install cycling paths there. Many cities struggle with this problem because cyclists benefit, again, from a fully area-covering cycling route network, such that they do not have to switch from one to the other.

Our legislation, our Road Code, actually offers only two things: first, the cycling paths that can be installed on the roads; second, roads that are completely inaccessible to cars and that therefore can only be used by cyclists. The bicycle road is something in between.

The bicycle street is a street that functions as an important bicycle connection, but where car traffic is also allowed. An important feature – no detail – is that in the bicycle street the car is the second plane and that it must remain behind the cyclist. In other words, in a bicycle street, the bicycle is the measure of things, not the car.

In the Netherlands and Germany, the term bicycle road has existed for a long time. There is no legal basis for this in the Netherlands, but in Germany.

I think it would be useful for many cities and municipalities that there is a legal basis for the concept of “bicycle street”, because it does not only get an official character, but also because one gets uniformity in the different cities and municipalities where one wants to install a bicycle street.

Mr. Speaker, colleagues, I would like to thank Peter Dedecker for his sound report as well as those who assisted him in drawing up this difficult report.

The reason for my speech and my plea to revise the opinion of the committee is to remind the Minister Van Quickenborne concerned of his own words. Not so long ago, he was quite proud that the depolitization of the BIPT, the Belgian Institute for Postal Services and Telecommunications, would be a fact. He boasted that the board of directors would no longer be composed of political creatures, but of persons who are educated and possess the necessary knowledge of affairs. That says a lot about previous figures. Minister Van Quickenborne appears to have done so.

Unfortunately, edoch, under political pressure or because he found it useful and fair, he created the post of special commissioners. What does this task involve? It comes down to the fact that the politically appointed persons who were sitting there at the time are returning to the BIPT by the back door. One of the conditions was: experience with seating in the BIPT. So it is easy. In this way one makes sure that one has outwardly the image of the virgin: one is no longer politically appointed! Meanwhile, through these special commissioners, the political mother-in-law are again created, looking at the fingers of the BIPT.

I think that Minister Van Quickenborne is not set up with mother-in-law, let alone with political mother-in-law. It would be a good thing if we were to get rid of it.

The current legislation gives the opportunity to remove this function. It has been discussed several times in the committee and I have not heard at any time what the added value of the special contractors is, except their political membership card.

Colleagues, their position, by the way, depends on a price mark; those guests do not do it for nothing, they must at least pay their membership card. The BIPT itself notes that it has a shortage of personnel. Therefore, it seems strongly that the special contractors do not mean added value. Recently, the BIPT has complained at a hearing about the shortage of personnel. The telecommunications sector also acknowledges that the BIPT is unable to perform certain tasks. Apparently, there are enough funds to maintain the status of special contractor.

I would like to add the following as a supplement to Mr. Dedecker’s sound report. The Minister for Entrepreneurship and Simplification noted that my group, the Flemish Interest, would have approved the initial regulation on the BIPT. Even a little wet behind my ears, I could neither deny nor confirm. Then I did the necessary search work and I must disappoint the minister concerned. Apparently his explanation in the committee was not correct. He may have made a mistake or it may have been a lapsus. After all, I can hardly imagine that someone from his cabinet has infused him that bad faith. Therefore, here in the plenary session, I would like to refute what the Minister stated in the committee of 14 June on the position of the Flemish Interest in relation to the initial regulation.

I have examined a number of things in the report. Let’s go back in time, to December 13, 2002. Probably it was late when the text was voted and Mr Van Quickenborne was a little tired. When the regulations were approved, not only the Vlaams Belang voted against, but also CD&V. The same CD&V now rejects our proposal in the committee without problems. CD&V itself had criticism at the time on the statute of the special contractors. I quote Roel Deseyn, member of CD&V: “Mr. President, this is an important bill. Unfortunately, we find that it in no way meets the European Commission’s aspirations to create an independent regulator for the telecommunications market. The control mechanism that was installed on the PS’s control and in which the minister retains too much grip on the telecommunications market is in no way in line with what Europe imposes on us.”

If even CD&V says that, who are we to do it better than CD&V? Therefore, we found it important to pay attention to this again. Maybe we will see the light tomorrow, maybe Minister Van Quickenborne has prepared his dossier or so that we can still approve the proposed proposal.

After all, as we note in the Netherlands, almost every municipality or city has a different sign to indicate the bicycle street. This is absolutely not favorable to uniformity.

Colleagues, I would like to thank everyone who has contributed to the creation of this proposal, especially Mr Balcaen, who is the co-contributor, but also the colleagues of PS, Open Vld, MR, CD&V and cdH and in particular – although she is no longer present – the chairwoman, Mrs De Block, who managed to lead the sometimes chaotic and fierce discussions. I absolutely hope that this proposal will be adopted tomorrow.

The cycling street is a tool among others to promote the cyclist’s place in traffic and on public roads. Faced with the double challenge, climate and sustainable mobility, this measure is worth implementing.

So, what can a cycling street be used for?

Of course, during the committee debates, residential areas where pedestrians are prioritised and areas 30 that already provide solutions for better coexistence of road users, in particular better protection of the weakest users.

Are these measures sufficient regardless of the circumstances? and no. The establishment of a cycling street is therefore justified in some cases.

The cycling street is original in the sense that it allows to give, where it is impossible to prohibit the movement of cars, the priority to cyclists while leaving the motorists to circulate. This traffic of cars is limited, especially in speed, but is not subject to prior permits. It is therefore about reversing the logic of priority: in the case of the cycling street, the priority is left to cyclists.

In an urban environment where infrastructure works would be too expensive or impossible to carry out to ensure better safety for cyclists by creating or expanding a cycling track, for example, the cycling street has its utility. It also responds to requests from roadside managers. Its implementation in foreign countries shows the usefulness of the formula to contribute to the creation of cycling networks; these increase the safety of the cyclist, of course, but also allow him to move quickly in the city, an important element if we want to promote the transfer of the car to the bike.

The committee hearings of the IBSR and cyclist associations showed widespread adherence to the principle. It is true that discussions have taken place on the type of signaling to be implemented. A debate also focused on the multiplication of signals and the growing lack of visibility of the Road Code.

This is a fact, but I think that here, the creation of a new rule – optional, let us emphasize it –, as in the other case that has occupied us just recently, does not imply the generalization of the measure. The creation of a new rule and a new signal is a compulsory passage and a "necessary evil" where awareness of the place of the bike in traffic still needs to be realized.

In the temporary absence, we hope, of a critical mass of cyclists that would de facto change the behavior of motorists, accompanying measures are therefore necessary.

As for the choice of the signal, we have preferred, by amendment, to entrust to the King the determination of the most appropriate formula.

However, this reasonable decision should not delay the implementation of the new regulation. It will then remain for railway managers to use this new tool according to local conditions in terms of infrastructure and traffic, also according to the needs and demands of cyclists, in particular as part of a cyclable plan or the development of a cyclable network.

Mr. Speaker, dear colleagues, my speech will be short and goes in the direction of the previous on the turn to the right cyclist. Any proposal that promotes and facilitates the use of bicycles should be encouraged. Today, our cities are still most often left to cars alone at the expense of the quality of life of their inhabitants. It is necessary, on the contrary, to promote the fair distribution of the road which belongs to all users.

by Mr. The Secretary of State has just arrived. I suggest giving him time to settle.

Is there satisfaction in all banks?

Apparently Mr. President!

The two bicycle proposals that are presented to us at the vote have all their reason to be and will allow to set up two very interesting tools in the fight against car congestion, which, in the end, will finally make the city breathe.

A few numbers are often better than a long speech. In Brussels alone, there are almost 400,000 cars circulating every day; 25% of travel is less than 1 km; 50% of travel is less than 3 km; 62% of travel is less than 5 km. Nearly 60% of Brussels residents make the majority of their travel mainly by car. By listening to these figures, it is much better to measure the urgency to react.

Public transport is of course a tool to be maximized. Bicycle also finds its place in this difficult battle against car congestion. Its efficiency is optimum on distances of less than 5 km, which accounts for more than 62% of intra-Brussels travel. This is why my group clearly supports the proposal of our colleagues sp.a to introduce the cyclist street.

Mr. Speaker, colleagues, I have already emphasized that I am a priori sympathetic to measures that encourage cycling. Regarding the bicycle road, I also made it clear from the beginning that I clearly dislike the idea. Only I was not entirely convinced whether a new type of road or route should be introduced again in the Road Code.

There are already residential settlements, zones 30, zones 50 and so on. It is important that we make and keep the Road Code in general, if we look at it from any distance, as simple as possible. A few years ago, under Minister Landuyt, the government launched a project to simplify the Road Code. This would currently be in a final stage. It is, of course, not an easy task, but if we again introduce a new concept of road today, then we will make the Road Code a step more complicated.

A second observation I had in advance, at the beginning of the debate, was again – I have also cited it later – the way of working, with a bill that will change a KB. That in itself is not the big point. Certainly the way you addressed it, Mrs. Temmerman, was very constructive, in consultation with the chairman of our committee and the cabinet. The proposal has been implemented in a very good way. It is a good example of how to work with legislative proposals on the Road Code in the committee.

I got acquainted with the bike street in 1996, during a visit to Copenhagen. I do not know if that particular cycling street is still used there today, but I found it a very interesting way of working, because one can not, especially in urban environments, simply make all streets free of traffic to give cyclists and pedestrians absolute priority. There are also people living there, there are shops or ⁇ that need to be polite and so on.

In that regard, such a bicycle street, as a good and fast connection between two points, was ⁇ an interesting idea for cyclists in an urban environment. I therefore understood very well that you, from the Gent situation, where you are faced with a concrete problem on the subject, were explicitly looking for a legal basis. I felt that maybe the current Road Code and the current traffic rules could come to a solution to bring about such an idea, but that turned out to be not so simple. I myself also searched to see if, by means of the current traffic rules, without creating new ones, one could not come to something similar, to a kind of bicycle road. This did not prove to be the case.

I come to my conclusion. I think it is a good idea. In the amended law, as it is presented today and will be approved tomorrow, it is well drawn up, in cooperation with the whole committee. I would like to congratulate you, together with your colleagues, for this. I think we can fully support this proposal tomorrow.

Mr. Veys, the Secretary of State is present.

Mr. Speaker, Mr. Secretary of State, I am glad that you have heard my call and yet are still present to attend this important discussion.

Colleagues, the present bill, which is intended to anchor the principle of the bicycle road in the Road Code, should still encourage some concerns.

On the one hand, there is the question on which we will vote tomorrow. Does it make sense to vote tomorrow? After all, I note that in Gent the city administration has not waited for the legislation in question to introduce the bicycle road already. I wonder if there is a gap in the law. Was this legislative work necessary? Those who drive through the Fisheries in Gent today find that the bicycle road has already been installed there.

Anyone who knows the socialist mayor Termont knows how to do it. This is done by painting the street surface completely red. Those in Gent who drive through the street in question clearly see who in Gent swings the plank, namely the socialist mayor who installs this with his creations.

So in Gent you can already see a bicycle street. There is even a sign “Bicycle Street”, so I wonder what we will approve here today. Is there a gap in the law? Apparently not. Not according to the City Council. However, one of the initiators has earned its lines in the Gent city administration. We must not suspect the Gent city administration of illegal practices, the city adheres to the law. Mayor Termont always says “The law is the law. If I have to blow, I blow.”

Here too he applies the law, so I wonder why we will change the law tomorrow. We will allow in Gent, and ⁇ elsewhere, a street to become a bicycle street.

Tomorrow we will vote on a law to introduce a bicycle road in Gent. It is a street that symbolizes the mobility policy in Gent. One is at the end of his Latin to explain to the Gentenaar how it comes that there are so many slides, so one suddenly comes up with the principle of the bicycle street.

I think we should go back in time. A few weeks ago, a very clear language was spoken in the committee concerned. Among other things, the cabinet of State Secretary Schouppe said that there are already sufficient measures to promote safe cycling traffic through a number of infrastructure interventions. Maybe this is one of them, but then I wonder what we will vote on tomorrow.

By the way, I would like to guide you around Gent. We will introduce a new traffic signs here, while there is already a forest of traffic signs in some locations. The road user will here again face an inflation on traffic signs. There will be a traffic sign for turning to the right at red light and another for the bike street.

Colleagues, I think you should understand the seriousness of this problem, given the fact that this is realized at the head of the client. Gent wants a bicycle road and so Gent gets its bicycle road. As Gentenaar I am very satisfied with the attention, but I wonder if this should be done through a bill. Shouldn’t we also agree with the criticism of the Cabinet of State Secretary Schouppe?

Other measures are also possible, such as zone 30, zone 20 on a residential estate and a number of infrastructure measures. It is true that certain streets do not lend themselves to this, but I repeat that they are creating a problem here that does not exist. One had perfectly through other instruments that can install bicycle street.

Mr. Speaker, I am going around to the pleasure of you and the colleagues, and then especially the ladies who see the clock quickly bypass. The current law can be easily applied today. I would like to urge that law be applied in Gent, but also elsewhere. What prevents other cities from applying this? I believe that common sense must win. Maybe we can still discuss the color, but for the rest, I think this is a step too far.

Mr. Secretary of State, you would like to intervene... but I hope that it is not on the color of the carpets and that we will overtake the municipal council of Gand!

Mr. Speaker, I will make you comfortable: I will speak for half an hour.

Oh, I have time! I did not come by bicycle.

Mr. Speaker, ladies and gentlemen colleagues, the present proposal, which came forward in the Chamber Committee on Infrastructure and received many defenders in the same committee, has subsequently caused a lot of reactions in the public opinion. As one of the Chamber Members told me this afternoon, the proposal is the topic that was discussed on the row.

From the many dozens and even hundreds of responses I have received, it has been clear that there is a limited number of supporters, especially those who are members of a cyclist union. Parental associations, pedestrian associations and walkers are opposed to the proposal.

I must confess in all honesty – I have not put this under chairs or benches in the committee itself – that I personally stand very negatively towards the approval of the present proposal.

The bicycle road is only a specific case of this proposal, giving cyclists absolute priority.

Mr Veys, the bicycle street you are talking about and that Ms. Temmerman defended in the Chamber Committee, is ultimately only a specific case of absolute priority, which is an extension of the proposal made in the same committee.

In the end, two things are distinguished from each other, which are ultimately the same, in particular the question of the priority we give to cyclists over other road users among all traffic actors. That is the essence.

The bicycle road may be a specific case of Gent. Mrs. Temmerman, I also watched television on Sunday night. In suggesting what happened, one showed a specific case of a bike path next to the road and indicated what are the advantages of the absolute priority given to cyclists.

Therefore, Mr. Verherstraeten, one is not independent of the other. Meanwhile, Mr. Verherstraeten is already gone. It is simply an extension of the general principle.

Now, where the bicycle street, in view of the living environment and urban development, may possibly rely on some understanding, since it can be arranged in this way only in that street, the general principle of giving such a priority to the bicyclists in normal traffic can be difficult to accept.

While I can understand the bicycle road – I have expressly stated that, Mrs. Temmerman – I must say that the basic principle of working in normal conditions alongside the other road users is, in any case, fundamentally rejectable. Why Why ? For the simple reason that it is too dangerous. While the bike street has undoubted advantages, the other proposal that has been paved here tonight has undoubtedly significant disadvantages.

What are those disadvantages?

First, there are legal disadvantages because Belgium has ratified the Vienna Convention without reservations. This means that in normal traffic, when one wants to give such a priority, a specific, separate signaling will have to be made.

Second, a similar proposal already made ten years ago received a formal negative opinion from the State Council and, by the way, also from the Chamber’s legal service.

Third, ⁇ the most important argument in the field of road safety. I repeat that I am for the bicycle street, but against the basic principle that one wants to be allowed here in a broad way. I would like to emphasize that in our country annually approximately 1 000 cyclists are involved in a serious accident. Every year, 90 people die and more than 900 people are seriously injured. Well, traffic regulation has everything to win with a simple structure and a simple regulation. When one makes it so complex that one cannot allow a general principle everywhere, but one must develop a specific signaling case by case, it works confusing and unsafe. This will only cause problems and increase the danger.

I decide . Where the bicycle road has undoubtedly advantages, I would like to struggle absolutely against the basic principle on which the bicycle road is built, and I would like to fight that for the simple reason that there is nowhere to show that this leads to any improvement in the traffic situation and to an improvement in road safety.

Here is my point of view, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Secretary of State, it would have been interesting if you could have followed our presentation and responded to the issues we have cited.

How do you face the arrangement as currently possible in Article 61.1 of the Road Code? In this way, one can create the same situation, not by means of a board, but by means of a deviating arrow, thus enabling a right-wing movement in the same way.

You must not lose sight of a case. You can follow everything online and therefore hear what is told here.

In the event that you cite, I have clearly alluded. If one wants to design a specific signaling for a specific solution, then one must tell the Flemish Region and all municipalities clearly that one is developing a specific signaling for cyclists. It is not possible to work on a general basis.

That specific, inevitable case that you are dealing with is not yet a basis for me to allow a generalization. I have mentioned this in my answer.

So you confirm that it can be applied in this way, that it is so stated in the Road Code, that the Regions and the municipalities can work with it, and that you do not find the prevailing struggle of priority a good idea?

Indeed indeed .