Projet de loi modifiant la loi du 16 mars 1968 relative à la police de la circulation routière en ce qui concerne la durée de la déchéance subsidiaire du droit de conduire.
General information ¶
- Authors
- CD&V Leen Dierick, Nahima Lanjri, Nathalie Muylle, Jef Van den Bergh
- Submission date
- Oct. 5, 2011
- Official page
- Visit
- Status
- Adopted
- Requirement
- Simple
- Subjects
- driving licence highway code traffic regulations road traffic
Voting ¶
- Voted to adopt
- Groen CD&V Vooruit Ecolo LE PS | SP ∉ Open Vld N-VA MR VB
Party dissidents ¶
- Kristof Waterschoot (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 ¶
June 12, 2013 | Plenary session (Chamber of representatives)
Full source
President André Flahaut ⚙
Isabelle Emmery, rapporteur, refers to her written report.
Karin Temmerman Vooruit ⚙
Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker. Belgium is a bad learner in the field of road safety.
We are not doing well compared to our neighbors. The number of road deaths in Belgium is 50 percent higher than in the Netherlands and Britain, and 25 percent higher than in France and Germany.
Although we count a lot of deaths on our highways, we are apparently on the right path, because there is an improvement. We hope that this improvement will continue.
In 2012, there was a sharp decline in the number of road deaths and the number of weekend accidents, but we are still far from where we should be. For example, there were 750 deaths in 2012, but that was actually the goal for 2010. Apparently we will never reach our pre-set goals. The next target is a maximum of 630 deaths by 2015. Let us agree that every dead is one too many. Our goal should be zero deaths.
The improvement is due to various factors. There is better cooperation between police, Justice, politicians, organizations, the automotive sector and governments. Better infrastructure also plays a role. But of course it can still be better.
Moreover, the police have recently controlled much more and the approach of recidivists is at the top of its list. We have approved higher penalties for driving under influence and driving without belt. There is also the technological improvement in the automotive sector. We also have the track control, although that is a competence of the regions. All this leads to an improvement in road safety.
But, colleagues, as already stated, we are far from there and any measure we can take to improve road safety must be addressed with both hands. Hence also the present proposal to replace the fines after a traffic offence by an expiration of the right to drive, thus the withdrawal of the driver's license for a certain period. The fine was not proportionate to the duration of the withdrawal. With the proposal, we extend the withdrawal of the driving licence from one month to one year or from a minimum of eight days to one month.
This is another sign that we take road safety seriously. It will have an additional disruptive effect. We give the police judge an extra weapon in the hands. He may consider that the withdrawal of the driver’s license is a better sanction, and he may now impose that heavier sanction. The sanction is fairer compared to the other rules and, again, it is a powerful incentive to impose a penalty on the offender, if he cannot pay the fine.
Therefore, we will support the proposal, which, however, should also contribute to greater road safety in our country and should put us better on the road towards reducing the number of road deaths in our country.
Jef Van den Bergh CD&V ⚙
Mr. Speaker, Mr. Minister, colleagues, I thank Mrs. Temmerman for her expressed support and for her argument for improving road safety. We need to work shoulder to shoulder and can take important steps forward with a set of small measures.
Yesterday, everyone was able to get acquainted with the renewed bob campaign. Bob has become a verb: I bob, he bobt, we bobben. I still have to get used to the new smurf variant. One finds it right, the other finds it somewhat faint, but whatever of them, the basic idea – not only with regard to alcohol in the traffic, but with regard to road safety in general – is right and clear: road safety is a matter of everyone and everyone has the duty to be involved.
In order to get everyone on board, a comprehensive road safety policy is essential. The credibility is based on a sufficiently high probability and a certain and representative punishment. Offenders are not allowed to escape the dance. When that happens, it undermines the support of the rest of the population. As colleague Temmerman said, it is fair to others.
One of the sticks behind the door for offenders who do not pay their traffic fine is the replacement default. Article 69bis of the Traffic Act today stipulates that a fine can be replaced by a driving ban, the duration of which may not be longer than one month and not less than eight days.
It is clear that the maximum period of one month replacement driving ban is quite short, especially when the term is placed in addition to the maximum fines established by the traffic law, which can amount to 6 600 euros. Everyone feels that the ratio between a fine of 6,600 euros and a one-month driving ban is divided.
The legislation proposed today, therefore, extends the aforementioned maximum period to one year. Such a driving ban will not only make the mispayer think twice, but will also make the system fairer. The judge should be able to replace the fine by an expiry of the right to send with a proportionate severity.
The replacement decay is in the elevator, and not specifically with offenders who cannot pay their fine. In practice, the judge has sufficient possibilities to take account of the financial situation of a convicted person. The fine may be lower than the statutory minimum if a person can demonstrate that he does not have sufficient financial resources. There is also the possibility of delay and suspension. In addition, there are the systems of work penalties and driving skills courses, which are often used, especially for young drivers.
I emphasize that for a moment, because some argued that the law change would possibly lead to some sort of class justice.
The replacement default must therefore be seen first and foremost as a stick behind the door for those who do not want to pay their fine. However, the stick must be sufficiently large, if it wants to have an effect. With this proposal, we want to take a small step towards a closing sanctions policy in which there is no room for criminals.
Therefore, we hope that the present proposal, as in the committee, will be able to count on a large majority in the House.