Proposition 53K2440

Proposition de résolution visant à promouvoir l'adaptateur de vitesse intelligent en vue d'accroître la sécurité routière à la lumière de la directive STI et des recommandations de la Commission fédérale sécurité routière.

General information ¶

Authors

CD&V Jef Van den Bergh
LE Christophe Bastin
MR Valérie De Bue
Open Vld Sabien Lahaye-Battheu
PS | SP Anthony Dufrane, Isabelle Emmery
Vooruit David Geerts, Karin Temmerman

Submission date

Oct. 10, 2012

Official page

Visit

Status

Adopted

Requirement

Simple

Subjects

intelligent transport system resolution of parliament new technology speed control road safety road traffic

Voting ¶

Voted to adopt

Groen CD&V Vooruit Ecolo LE PS | SP ∉ Open Vld N-VA MR VB

Voted to reject

LDD

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 ¶

April 18, 2013 | Plenary session (Chamber of representatives)

Full source

During the discussion, several points were raised by the colleagues. First of all, this resolution deals with promoting intelligent speed adjustment in vehicles and how this could be done.

During the introductory presentation, Mr Geerts pointed out the still large number of road deaths in our country, in the last ten years about twelve thousand. Everyone must recognize that this figure is far too high. At the same time, he points out the possibilities at the technological level to act against it and find a solution. It was also noted that technology alone does not advance things.

Many members took the word during the discussion. Almost all of them pointed out the same points, namely the great role of speed in our road accidents and the great importance of reducing the number of road deaths. The technological thinking paths, including intelligent speed adjustment, should not be ignored. Many colleagues have also pointed out that the ISA or intelligent speed adjustment is a flag that covers many loads. The different systems ensure that the support surface for each of these systems is different. It should be considered how this technology can be best encouraged.

Additionally, and notably, the Flemish Interest Group has requested that additional scientific research be carried out. Mr Veys expressed that position. He wondered if speed really has an impact on causing fatal road accidents. I will not comment further on this, but it was clear that the colleagues did not agree with it.

The Secretary of State also cited a number of points. He notes that the ISA has a number of major advantages, but that we should not forget that there are also other problems. Implementation only at the domestic level is problematic. A number of barriers still have to be overcome. The support level also depends on the chosen system. The solution is not always equally obvious. The Secretary of State has also specifically requested that the resolution be made less vague, because, as it predicts and still predicts, no clear choices are made.

The hearings with the Centre for Sustainable Development and the BIVV have, in any case, made clear how the problem matters, what are the concrete advantages and barriers of the ISA and how the various systems work, but also how the support platform is positioned in the meantime. In particular, the hearings provided additional information for the treatment of the resolution.

From this discussion, in any case, the following conclusions can be drawn. There is a wide range of support to do something with that intelligent speed adjustment. Some colleagues, including myself, find the resolution too vague at the moment, but the resolution already has the added value that something is being done about ISA.

The resolution was unanimously approved in the committee, which means that within six months the government may come up with a plan to promote that intelligent speed adjustment.

Mr. Wollants, I would like to thank you for your very well-documented report.

I would like to begin by thanking the colleagues in the committee who supported the proposals and who also requested those additional hearings, which, however, allowed us to approve this resolution with very solid information. As Mr. Wollants has already said, the resolution was unanimously adopted in the committee and I also hope that a unanimous vote will be held here later in the plenary session.

Many points in the report have already been made clear. We still have a lot of road deaths, 12 thousand in ten years. There is a little bit of good news: the figure is falling a little bit. In 2000, there were 1,470 road deaths in our country. In 2011, this figure was reduced to 840, but, of course, there are still 840 too many. Our attitude must be to go to zero.

It is also very clear – I would like to say this again with regard to Mr. Veys – that alcohol and speed are usually the causes of road deaths and road accidents. To say that speed is not an element is to deny what is demonstrated in almost all scientific studies.

There have already been many ISA pilot projects, and very often it is pointed out that ISA is an instrument of the future, helping to avoid road accidents and especially road traffic casualties. That is why it needs to be worked on it at all levels – federal, Flemish but also in the municipalities. Both the BIVV and Professor De Mol have pointed out that ISA is not only the most tested system, but also the system with the most impact on road safety.

I myself had the pleasure of being able to participate in an ISA project in Gent about eight years ago. We then used fifty systems in the stand, including buses. The result of this pilot project was that people who were initially very opposed to the system, after the pilot project, were very much in favor and even wanted the system not to be extracted from their cars. Mr. Sven Vlassenroot subsequently obtained a doctorate with a dissertation on the support of such a system. This clearly shows that the support for this system is very large.

Therefore, I would like to advocate the completion of the experimental phase. There have been many pilot projects in different countries. I think we need to take action now. Several colleagues have pointed out that Europe should play a central role in this. The Secretary of State also pointed out that it makes no sense to apply this system only to us or only to a particular region.

The European map should be drawn in full, which is also included in the resolution. In this way, the federal government can put the matter on the European agenda on the available forums. In this way, we can also take a step ahead.

I would like to thank again everyone who has contributed to the resolution and who wants to adopt it. I hope that soon in the plenary session we will get a house-wide majority for the system.

This resolution was adopted unanimously. This demonstrates its usefulness and consensual nature and therefore its importance in the fight to limit the number of accidents due to speed. As the previous speaker recalled, speed is the main cause of 30% of fatal accidents!

Several studies demonstrate that this ISA system receives increasingly the consent of the population. It is true that the hearings showed that there are still some obstacles, some brakes. The debate must be held at the European level.

There is still a long way to go in terms of the budgets to be studied. Technologies will also continue to evolve, as there is a great diversity of systems.

I think it is important that Parliament sends a signal to the government so that the government continues its work in the right direction, with the Regions and within the European framework.

We are all familiar with the famous tests of the European Car Assessment Programme (Euro NCAP) supported by many automotive governments and associations, whose goal is to provide consumers in the automotive world with an independent and realistic assessment of the safety performance of cars among the best-selling in Europe.

Euro NCAP has made an important decision, which will undoubtedly have a decisive impact on the large-scale deployment of the ISA, the intelligent speed adapter. As of January, vehicles using ISA technology will be credited with additional points in Euro NCAP tests.

With this strong gesture, the European Evaluation Programme recognizes the effectiveness of technological tools using speed information from the recognition of signals, digital map data or a combination of these data sources, as part of the fight against road insecurity and the efforts made to reduce the number of dead and injured on our roads.

While the Euro NCAP decision will clearly encourage manufacturers to quickly equip their vehicles, it should also encourage our States to accelerate the updating of digital maps in order to quickly establish a large database of speed limitations across the European Union. This is a necessary step in order to ensure the efficiency of the system.

Experts are unanimous: speed is both a factor triggering accidents and aggravating their consequences. In agglomerations, 70 percent of pedestrians die as a result of a collision with a vehicle driving at a speed of more than 50 km/h, while 80 percent of them would have been saved if that same vehicle had driven at 30 km/h at the time of the impact on national roads when approaching villages. These are alarming statistics due to speed as well.

Initial driver training, recurring awareness campaigns and control/sanction are necessary but insufficient means of achieving a significant decrease in practiced speeds.

Today, thanks to these new technologies and the technical advances made by automotive manufacturers and equipment vendors, it is now possible to introduce in vehicles systems that force the driver to respect the speed limits while ensuring real driving comfort. It would, in my opinion, be very stupid to avoid this tool, whose effectiveness is now recognized and demonstrated in our unceasing struggle to reduce the number of victims on our roads.

Automotive manufacturers will do their part of the job very quickly, pushed in this by Euro NCAP. Governments cannot be left behind and must also, from now on, do their part of work. This is why we, the Socialist Group, fully support the resolution proposal that we are asked to vote this afternoon.

Mr. Speaker, Mr. Secretary of State, colleagues, the faster you drive, the less time you have to process information and to respond. The faster you drive, the greater the distance to stop for an obstacle. The faster one drives, the more damage and the more serious the injuries in a collision. The stop distances also make this clear. At a speed of 120 kilometers per hour, it takes 102 meters to stand still, at 140 kilometers per hour that distance is already 134 meters on a dry road cover. With a wet road cover, that is 144 and 190 meters, respectively. Actually everyone knows that. It is the logic itself. But yet, excessive and unadapted speed kill in our country still 250 drivers annually in our traffic.

The Belgian driver is still ⁇ tolerant of driving too fast. According to the latest attitude measurement of the BIVV, approximately 40 % consider over-speed driving acceptable. Therefore, we have a lot of work to do if we want to effectively ⁇ the goal of 50 % reduction in road deaths by 2020, in terms of policy, but ⁇ in terms of the awareness of our motorists.

An adequate speed policy contains many elements. A speed policy should be logical and accompanied by awareness-raising campaigns. Brussels has given another good example this week, with a awareness campaign that both rewards and punishes. More checks are essential and after the checks, of course, a punishment should also follow. Especially in the case of recidive, in the case of frequent speed breaches, in the case of improved speed devils say, there is still some work to be done. Traffic legislation is still too mild today for recurrence of heavy speed violations. In this sense, we look forward to the announced draft of the Secretary of State, which will introduce harsher penalties for this.

However, there is more possible. The advanced technology makes it possible to work much more preventively, through the installation of the ISA system, the intelligent speed assist in the vehicle.

In the Infrastructure Commission, the same nail has been knocked on several times. ISA should be generally implemented. The support for that is there. Colleague Temmerman has already mentioned this.

Let us look back a moment. In 2004, a resolution on ISA was already adopted in this Parliament. Honestly, honestly, almost ten years later, we have to conclude that there has been little political progress. The fact that the powers in this area are fragmented across the different policy levels may not be strange to this. It is first and foremost up to Europe to impose ISA as vehicle technology. However, it is up to the West to develop speed maps and keep them up-to-date. This resolution has the merit that it wants to pull to the car to get more shot in the case. She calls on the federal government to quickly come up with a concrete plan to remove existing barriers to the ISA system.

It is important to work together in a coordinated way in order to finally ⁇ results. Every level, every policy area, every sector, must assume its responsibility, if we do not want to talk about this matter again in ten years. That is why this resolution deserves all support. I would like to thank Mr. Temmerman for the initiative.