Proposition 53K2063

Projet de loi modifiant l'article 6.3 de l'arrêté royal du 1er décembre 1975 portant règlement général sur la police de la circulation routière et l'usage de la voie publique afin d'introduire une dérogation au principe général de primauté des signaux lumineux de circulation en ce qui concerne les signaux routiers relatifs à la priorité pour les cyclistes.

General information ¶

Authors

MR Valérie De Bue
Open Vld Sabien Lahaye-Battheu
PS | SP Anthony Dufrane
Vooruit Karin Temmerman

Submission date

Feb. 14, 2012

Official page

Visit

Status

Adopted

Requirement

Simple

Subjects

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 N-VA LDD MR

Voted to reject

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 ¶

June 28, 2012 | Plenary session (Chamber of representatives)

Full source

I refer to the written report, which was sent in due time.

Mr. Speaker, Mr. Secretary of State, unfortunately not competent for Mobility – that Secretary of State is absent – colleagues, on 19 July 2011, our group expressed serious concerns and criticism of the speaker in connection with the amendment of the KB of 1 December 1975 concerning the general regulation on the road traffic police, because it declared the traffic lights as the true bird free. Until then, the general principle was that red light means stopping, regardless of which traffic sign the red light accompanies.

I then complained that there was a big problem with the cyclists. The figures also showed that cyclists spend 20% of the time they are on the road in front of a red light, rather than having to deal with car exhaust gases, poor bike paths, road safety or accidents.

This was a very serious problem that had to be addressed. Some very ingenious people representatives here were willing to solve the problem.

I think it testifies to a certain selfishness of the cyclists when they find that the principle of the red light should be sacrificed to speed. This is one of the biggest problems for cyclists. Now we must tell young people and children in the field of traffic education that even a red light is no longer sacred.

I think there is a very heavy responsibility on the initiators. The current bill does not remedy this. The earlier criticisms are not accepted today either. There were also flanking measures, but we note that no initiative was taken to do so. We see only parliamentary – apologize for the word – rubbish. It was not even possible to get a correct Dutch-language version approved by the Chamber. The existing traffic regulations were not taken into account. Therefore, a new bill had to be submitted to correct this.

In the committee discussions last year, among other things, the legal services of the House, the competent secretary of state and the then chairman of the committee, Ms. De Block, have very rightly pointed out that it was not a good thing to amend a royal decree by means of a law. We can, of course, say that Parliament approves what it wants, and the less work we give to the King, the better, because the sooner he can go into his hunt somewhere near Motril.

In any case, we are facing a bad law. We need to adjust them. All this could have been avoided, if one had listened to then-state secretary Schouppe and also to the speakers in the committee not to change a royal decree by means of a law.

We have to do this through the present legislation. As a result, no one, including the competent secretary of state, has so far taken an initiative.

Mr. Veys, I don’t really have the habit of interrupting you when you’re speaking. If I understand it correctly, then you find it actually inappropriate that the present bill was submitted. That is where your speech comes down.

You have a very short memory. On 16 December 2010, Ms. Colen, a member of your party, submitted a legislative proposal, entirely the same, amending the Royal Decree of 1 December 1975 with the summary: “This legislative proposal aims to make traffic at crossroads more smooth by giving cyclists who want to turn to the right the possibility to perform their manoeuvre also at red light.” (Applause of Applause)

I would now put the books and go back to my place, if I were in your place.

Yet not . Mrs. Temmerman, I will decide myself when I will send the books.

We also submitted this proposal to the committee, but never asked for the agenda. We have been persuaded by, among others, the Family Union and the BIVV, individuals who had good arguments in this regard to not maintain our proposal. You can always change your mind.

In the field of road safety, there are important arguments for changing opinions. Last year we voted against, which is not embarrassing. I am pleased to be able to change my mind on road safety. Especially in the field of traffic education, very justified arguments have been cited to vote against this law. We did it then and will do it again today. There are many other examples mentioned here that have also changed their minds. I would rather change my mind than persist in anger.

I spoke of a number of highly justified criticisms expressed, not only by the Flemish Interest, which, as very carefully indicated by Ms. Temmerman, has been convinced by a number of well-founded arguments to revise its opinion. This was mentioned, among other things, in the Committee. In this context, I would like to point out, Mrs. Temmerman, that your only merit was that you added your name by amendment to the original bill. At the time of the hearings, however, you were not visible in the far distance.

I have not only referred to the position of the State Secretary responsible for Mobility. Among other things, the organization VTB/VAB clearly notes that it is not wise to use the right-to-door red principle. It refers to alternatives and not only in terms of infrastructure, i.e. of road design. Furthermore, she asks what prevents a cyclist from leaving the bike, struck by the red light, and then through the pedestrian path to go the corner and step on the bike again.

He does not; it is apparently a too big problem. In the hearing, where you were absent, Ms. Temmerman, it was pointed out that one of the problems facing cyclists is that they must leave from standstill. They must therefore again put tremendous amount of power on a bicycle to move from stopping at green light. Also this is apparently a problem, that one tries to overcome the laws of dynamics. It is an extraordinary achievement that this bill also meets this!

Another aspect that is pointed out from the policy cell of the State Secretary for Mobility is that now many cyclists are already driving through a red light. How do we solve this? Instead of making people obey the law, they are changing the law. What signal is it giving? If you violate the law, we will adapt, so that you can make your wish permanently.

There is another aspect. We will now allow cyclists to drive through a red light to turn to the right, but what will be the next question? Maybe to drive straight? What about the pedestrians? They also see it and they also want to cross, even if the light is red. It gives a very wrong signal.

On the one hand, a heavy responsibility rests on the shoulders of the initiators, also with respect to children, who suddenly face the apparently no longer sacred principle of traffic lights. On the other hand, as a cyclist, one will only be involved in an accident at a time when one thinks “it’s red, but for me green,” while this cyclist suddenly appears in front of a bus driver who assumes that there is no traffic on the right side.

These are all indications that indicate that it would be an extremely bad thing. Not only the Flemish Interest points to this, but also the BIVV, the Family Union and even former secretary of state Schouppe. In the committee, it was too easy to be persuaded to do so.

Regarding the policy framework measures, Ms. Crevits, in the plenary session of the Flemish Parliament of 1 February 2012, correctly addressed the negative opinion of the Flemish government, which includes your party, Ms. Temmerman. Apparently your party has also given a negative advice or do you not talk to your colleagues in the Flemish government? They also gave a negative opinion on this proposal. You shake no, but I will quote Mrs. Crevits.

The [...]

You shake no when I speak of a negative advice from a government you are in! Who is unreliable here?

You do not know the file well. [...] very clearly. You do not know the file.

Your Flemish government has given a negative advice.

[...] for the roads.

It would still be lacking that they could give advice on municipal roads. They are not competent for this. You do not know your file. It is about roads. The Flemish Region, of course, gives advice on regional roads and not on provincial roads, because they have been abolished, nor on municipal roads, which belong to the local authorities.

Since we have reached that point, Mrs. Crevits stated very clearly in the plenary session of 1 February: “The Flemish government has chosen to give a negative opinion on the bill to turn right by red. In our current Flemish context and ⁇ on Flemish regional roads, it is only a question of whether it is so sensible...”.

Your proposed legislation also applies to local roads. Have you ever written an amendment that does not apply to roadways? Your own Flemish government has also rejected this.

I quote Mrs. Crevits further: “...it is only the question of whether it is so wise to solve that by means of a board. I regularly receive complaints from all my colleagues about the fact that there are too many signs.” We will add another board. Now we would ignore a principle that has existed for so long, “red is red and then one must stop” and say that one can go through it now and then. Colleagues, there are other means to come to a different situation. Mrs Crevits further states that a possible conflict with pedestrians is quite dangerous.

He also talks about local roads. “As for the local roads, I would have preferred that, at the same time as the federal parliament approves that law, the flankering installation decision would be immediately adjusted, making it clear in which situations it would be right.” Despite the fact that we have had to wait for years to amend that prulwet, you have not been able to ensure a flankering arrangement decision here. “Now everyone is told,” said Mrs. Crevits, “do what you think is right.” Therefore, one gives a free guide, but it is directed in. It will be the initiators worst whether there is a cyclist or someone else involved. The purpose justifies the means.

A final quote from Mrs. Crevits: “So I’m a little unhappy with the way the decision was adopted, so without a flankering program.” Thus, that is someone who speaks on behalf of the Flemish government, in which to this day also the sp.a. is located, although one can sometimes wonder what atmosphere prevails there.

If we go back to the plenary session of 19 July last year, then also Secretary of State Schouppe, to my knowledge still a CD&V’er or ACV’er as a more correct description, was yet very clear. In any case, it was then late and maybe some have missed it. I quote the Secretary of State: “From the many dozens and even hundreds of responses I have received, it has clearly shown that there is a limited number of supporters.” I suspect there may be more supporters here in the plenary session than outside the Parliament.

This is especially true for those who are members of a bicycle association. Parent associations, pedestrian associations and walkers are square against the proposal. I have to admit in all honesty that I personally am very negatively opposed to the approval of the present bill.

I think that then Secretary of State Schouppe was very clear. He, of course, gave Parliament the opportunity to approve the laws it wanted to approve. In this, I think that Secretary of State Schouppe correctly pointed out. He said, among other things, that the basic principle of working in normal conditions alongside other road users is, in any case, fundamentally rejectable for the simple reason that it is too much dangerous. I think that road safety and traffic education are two very important elements that should convince us that this is a bad law.

This has already persuaded me and my group not to re-agend our own bill. I hope of you the same.