Proposition 53K2880

Projet de loi modifiant la loi relative à la police de la circulation routière, coordonné le 16 mars 1968, la loi du 29 juin 1964 concernant la suspension, le sursis et la probation, la loi du 21 juin 1985 relative aux conditions techniques auxquelles doivent répondre tout véhicule de transport par terre, ses éléments ainsi que les accessoires de sécurité et la loi du 21 novembre 1989 relative à l'assurance obligatoire de la responsabilité obligatoire de la responsabilité en matière de véhicules automoteurs.

General information ¶

Submitted by

PS | SP the Di Rupo government

Submission date

June 12, 2013

Official page

Visit

Status

Adopted

Requirement

Simple

Subjects

alcoholism motor vehicle insurance drug addiction traffic offence driving licence penalty road safety road traffic

Voting ¶

Voted to adopt

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

Abstained from voting

LDD 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 ¶

Jan. 30, 2014 | Plenary session (Chamber of representatives)

Full source

As regards the report, I refer to the written text.

I am speaking on my own behalf and on behalf of my group.

Mr. Minister, Mr. Secretary of State, dear colleagues, less and less people are killed by making our roads safer, this is the goal that Belgium has set for itself by 2020.

In 2011, it was the equivalent of five Boeing that crashed on our roads. By 2020, we hope that will be just the equivalent of two Boeing. The image is striking. In any case, it is much more than the abstraction of dehumanized victims that have become mere statistics. The road kills. She kills too much.

The Belgians understood this. The prevention and control campaigns seem to be yielding fruit. The balance sheet for the first nine months of 2013 is very positive: fewer accidents, fewer injuries, and especially fewer deaths than in the first nine months of the previous year. Never before has such a low number of bodily accidents and victims been recorded in the first nine months of a year. These encouraging results should not exonerate us from continuing the efforts undertaken, for many years, for road safety in coordination with the Regions.

While prevention, information and awareness raising are, in our view, essential for changing behaviors and thus reducing the number of deaths and serious injuries on our roads, the repressive aspect also has its importance in the overall device. The objectives, and especially the targeted targets, are clearly identified: increasing the likelihood of arresting road offenders and introducing more coherent and effective penalties. Whatever some people say, alcohol and speed are still the main causes of serious accidents. Drivers will be punished harder. Sanctions are still too often the only way to act on the behavior of a small group of drivers.

A death on our roads will always be a death of too much. That is the obvious. Any action aimed at reducing the likelihood of dying or being damaged as a result of a road accident may only be encouraged in absolute terms.

That being, beyond repression, the best weapon is still and always the social acceptance of measures taken in terms of awareness and explanations given to the population. On this point, the recent polls of the IBSR among the population seem quite encouraging.

To conclude this intervention, I would like to address a particular point of the project, namely the tracking of uninsured vehicles through the use of automatic cameras that will scan the registration plates. While non-insurance is an important issue that should not be neglected, it should nevertheless always be borne in mind that a non-insured person is not necessarily a driver who has been excluded from his insurance due to too many accidents. There are also many young or elderly people who are unable to ensure a correct price being considered as simple statistics.

Alongside repression, it is therefore indispensable to address the problem of access to insurance at a decent price for many of our fellow citizens.

For years, the Socialist group has been advocating for a return to the bonus-malus, where only the actual conduct of the driver would be taken into account.

Mrs. Speaker, Mr. Secretary of State, colleagues, I was afraid for a moment that the draft agenda would be achieved. Indeed, in the Flemish newspapers appeared last Friday a message that the proposals presented today had already been approved by the Chamber. They may have been prospective journalists.

Bulgaria, Latvia, Greece, Poland, Romania and Lithuania are the only countries in the European Union that experience more road deaths per million inhabitants than our country. It was just said that, despite the fact that the number of road deaths and serious injuries has been drastically reduced in the last decade, our country is bending to the tail of the European road safety patrol. Every day there are two deaths on our roads. Fifteen people were seriously injured in the traffic. I repeat those numbers often, but they are numbers where we cannot stand still often enough. There is still a long way to go to ⁇ the goals of the General States of Traffic Safety, to halve the number of fatalities by 2020.

The bill presented today is a step in the right direction. It takes action on several important points. I will go over them with you.

First, the bill makes driving under the influence of alcohol more difficult. Alcohol is responsible for one in four road deaths. In the case of accidents during weekend nights, even one in two drivers test positive. Despite these compelling figures, the tolerance to drinking and driving remains remarkably high. Bear witness to the ⁇ disappointing signals coming from the WODCA actions of the last few weeks. For example, on New Year’s Eve, 5.6% of the controlled drivers blown positive compared to 3% a year earlier.

Second, the draft law introduces a stricter recurrence regime for the serious traffic offences. Right, because a small group of road pirates makes our roads systematically unsafe. They must be able to be addressed. With the scheme outlined in the draft, a type of premature driving license with points will be introduced for serious traffic offences. Anyone who hits the lamp twice in three years will be banned from driving for three months. Those who run against the lamp three times in the same three-year period will be banned from driving for six months. From four times it goes to nine months.

We see this as a first step towards a driving license with points. In the coming months we want to work on this further. After all, the driving license with points is a fair enforcement system. Those who commit many offenses will collect many points and be punished harder. Those who comply with the rules will be awarded little or no points and the points can be removed again.

Third, the bill focuses on foreign offenders. Also right, because foreign drivers have a significant share in the traffic violations. For example, they represent a quarter of all speed violations on Belgian motorways. Foreign drivers who still have a fine open will be screened and forced to pay. This is important to support the support of the road safety policy. Traffic rules should apply to everyone, including foreign drivers.

So the design is a step in the right direction, but it is not sufficient in itself. Stricter rules only have effect if a closer enforcement policy is followed. More and more efficient controls are needed. More control is not intended, as the news came out today, to feed the state treasury. Fifty million extra income from the fines, as we know today, is good. It is more controlled and better collected. This leads to better enforcement of traffic rules and reducing the number of victims. The revenue from the traffic fines may still, more than today, be used to further support road safety.

More efficient control means a better spread of alcohol controls throughout the year, but also a better filling based on the risk moments and places during the bob campaign itself. Especially checking on driving under influence around noon, but barely at night, when the percentage is the highest, as demonstrated during the bob campaign, is not an example of efficient control. Next week the report of this year’s BOB campaign will be published. I suspect it has gone better this year. In the future, it must continue.

As the President pointed out, there are also two legislative proposals linked to the present draft. Through amendments, we have included them in the draft. The amendments should simplify the control. They aim to make the immediate withdrawal of the driving license more efficient.

Every year, more than 30 000 driving licenses are immediately withdrawn, for example in alcohol controls. During the last bob campaign alone, there were already 2,200. The prosecutor should always be contacted. He should be called out of his bed at night, say. By allowing the judicial police officers to decide themselves to withdraw their driving licenses in the event of alcohol intoxication, excessive speed and drug use, the police can organize their checks more efficiently and give prosecutors more space to focus on more important matters. In addition, immediate withdrawal will be possible for drivers who have been convicted of driving with an alcohol lock, but who drive a vehicle that is not equipped with it, or who drive and do not meet the conditions of the conversion program.

Finally, I would like to point out the necessary change of mentality. Research from the BIVV shows that, more than checks, the social norm has an influence on driving behavior. The impact of Ozark Henry’s song 21 grams in which he sings a final message for the 128 young people who died in 2012 is therefore not to be underestimated. Ozark Henry has thus become an important role model. I am convinced that we must continue that path. We all need to be ambassadors for road safety. There are no excuses for that.

Our group will approve the present bill with conviction. The design focuses on some key sources of traffic safety behavior. However, the road is still long. The ultimate target must be the head of the European peloton.

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, 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, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, The figure for 2012 was still 672 road fatalities, which was an improvement. The objective of the plan is very positive.

Mr. Secretary of State, I would like to refer again to my comment during the discussion in the committee. For us, the project is a somewhat missed opportunity. After all, the government did not seize the opportunity to simplify and make traffic legislation more legible at the same time. Clear and understandable traffic rules and fewer traffic signs would also contribute to road safety for all categories of road users.

I have already asked you a few questions on this. Apparently, the reason for the delay and the drawing up of the file in question is a ongoing discussion between the federal level and the regions, which Open Vld deeply regrets.

We support the design and road safety policy of the State Secretary. Nevertheless, we would like to emphasize once again that for Open Vld all the links in the chain are important.

What do I mean by the judgment? I mean initially that the fines are proportionate and that there are clear traffic rules. Secondly, police checks should primarily be aimed at greater probability and probability of punishment. Third, we need to have sufficient arms for our police judges. Finally, there must be a change of mindset that Mr. Jef Van den Bergh has already mentioned.

A lot of fines have been increased in recent years. A previous speaker has already made a summary of this. The proposed plan contributes a little to a further increase.

We are pleased that the original idea of introducing a limit of 0.2 promile for beginner drivers has ultimately not been ⁇ ined. After all, we have been of the opinion that the control of existing rules takes precedence on the introduction of new stigmatizing rules for that specific target group.

Mr. Secretary of State, coincidentally, today interesting figures came into actuality. You probably have seen them too. In total, 430 million euros of fines were collected, an increase of 12.5%. The fines imposed by the police courts have seen the most dramatic increase, namely by 47%, from 38 million euros to 56 million euros. The immediate inputs have also increased, with a more modest 5%.

These figures are due, among other things, to the increase in fines. I would like to take the opportunity to hear your reaction to the criticism of Touring which reads as follows: “Sorry, the numbers are there, but the number of checks prevails in the knowledge of the fines.”

On a second criticism of Touring, colleague Van den Bergh has already made allusions. Touring claims that only 23% of the money spent goes back to the Penalty Fund and thus to projects related to road safety. Is this number correct? If so, what is your reaction to that? Colleague Van den Bergh had also expressed criticism that this percentage should be raised.

A third criticism of Touring is that traffic fines in our country are rising twice as fast as life expectancy. I will talk about this later from practice.

The second link is the control by the police. Drivers appear to be better at adhering to traffic rules if they feel they can walk against the lamp. Controls should be both quantitative and qualitatively high, focusing on the places and times where the safety risks are the greatest.

In this regard, I would like to refer to the opinion of colleague Bart Somers, also present here. He argued, among other things, that adjusting habits requires a much greater persistent effort, which can only be done with repeated interventions. In addition, he gave as an example that in Mechelen three to four times a week alcohol controls are carried out, which makes one feel no longer by touching the mazes of the net. Thus, through that persistent effort, one succeeds, according to my colleague, in bringing about a mental change there.

The third link is our police judges. In many cases, the investigation, conducted by the police and parquet,

The case eventually ended up at the police court’s office. It is he who receives the summons, the extract from the criminal record and the criminal record and must ultimately impose an appropriate punishment. We therefore believe that when it comes to detecting and punishing recidives, it is crucial that our police judges have up-to-date information. I think this is still not the case today. It is therefore important that the central databases of driving licenses and vehicles, which were established by law in recent years, are operational.

A police judge can impose a variety of penalties such as a fine or an intimidation, but they can also be alternative penalties. Per ⁇ I have said it several times in the committee, but I would like to break a lance for the more tailor-made work by our police judges. Imposing fines is one thing, but it is not always the most efficient way to incite someone to other behavior in traffic. There are alternative punishments in the sense of labor punishments. I repeat again that in the south of the country there are much more labor penalties imposed than in Flanders. Wallonian police judges impose three times more work penalties than their Flemish counterparts. Another alternative punishment is to take a road safety awareness course, organized by the BIVV.

Why do I emphasize these alternative punishments? Those who make mistakes in traffic should be punished, but it should be a punishment on a scale. I myself still come to the police court where I advocate files for traffic offenders. Mr. Secretary of State, I can tell you that for someone who has made a mistake and who has an income of just 1,300 euros and who receives a purely financial penalty, for example, a fine of 500 euros with the additional court costs and the contribution to the Fund for Deliberate Violent Acts that can be imposed once but sometimes also twice, that is a financial drama.

Compare that to someone who is correctionally convicted. The financial consequences of penalties imposed by the police judge often go far beyond the penalties imposed by the correctional judge. I think we should pay attention to this and especially impose punishments on a scale.

My last point is the mentality change. We have heard this from the BIVV, which determined that the results are not always what one wants. Ms. Genot says that it is mainly a change in mentality. We are not so far in this country.

You have responded by saying that you want to set up a awareness-raising campaign. Can you be more concrete about this and can you explain how you, together with us because we are all going for the same goal, that awareness-raising campaign wants to set up so that we ⁇ that mental change?

We will support the draft.

Mr. Speaker, Mr. Secretary of State, dear colleagues, I have to say that I am very pleased with this draft road traffic law that will be voted today in the plenary session. I am satisfied with several titles:

- because the text reduces the punishable alcohol-chemical rate of road drivers to 0.2 per thousand;

- because it extends the immediate perception in the case of influenced driving;

- because it broadly extends the question of recurrence to many behaviors such as the crime of escape, driving without a permit, the offences of the fourth degree, the most serious violations in terms of speed and even the use of a radar detector.

This text will clearly contribute to enhancing safety on our roads with reinforced and resolutely targeted measures towards drivers who do not comply with current rules and who create hazardous situations on our roads.

I am also satisfied with the unanimous vote on an amendment proposed by my group concerning the introduction in the law of the possibility for a judge to offer the offender to choose between paying a fine or following a driving training. This applies, of course, to offences that have not caused harm to others. This new measure will not only make a practice that has already been used voluntarily and arbitrarily official, but will also contribute to increasing the responsibility of drivers and the awareness of risky and thus dangerous behaviors.

Finally, I am pleased that our proposal – I say “our” because it is that of my colleague, Jef Van den Bergh and myself – is associated with this bill. This proposal empowers the police officer to order an immediate withdrawal of the license when he finds a too high alcohol level, driving under the influence of drugs or a serious excess of speed. This measure will further increase the efficiency of our police.

I thank you for your attention.

Mechelen demonstrates that the greater the chance of collapse, the fewer positive controls are established. That is the proof that more controls also have an impact on road safety. Mrs Lahaye-Battheu pointed out this, and I would like to repeat this here.

That is why we are organizing more and more controls. I would like to tell Ms. Lahaye-Battheu that more fines will be imposed as more checks are carried out. I do not think there is a direct link between the two, but it is not intended to be able to write out more fines. If no fines are paid, that means that no infringements were committed, even if performing with the same number of checks.

Touring points out the importance of the controls. That’s true, but I think it’s even more important that the Belgians respect the rules. Higher fines mean too many violations are committed and more checks need to be carried out.

With regard to your question regarding the amounts collected to be reinvested in road safety and in the Traffic Safety Fund, I must admit that I do not know the figures. However, I will let them deliver you. However, the way the Traffic Safety Fund is established has not changed. We now apply a principle that a portion of the fine that individuals have to pay for drinking is invested in equipment to organize additional checks. It is the first time that a portion of the fine is used to carry out more checks and purchase more alcohol and drug control equipment. This seems to me very important.

Alternative penalties are also being developed. This includes the possibility of compulsory training. Instead of paying a fine, some have to undertake training. To that end, an amendment was submitted by Mr Bastin and Mr Lutgen. Therefore, the possibility of alternative penalties is open.

There is another possible alternative, namely the immediate withdrawal of the driving license by the police officer. This is very important because the case does not go to the court. After all, the police judges have a lot of work to do, and I think it’s better for the police judges to focus on the most important and dangerous cases. There is no point in sending further cases to the courts.

It is true that we will organize more awareness-raising campaigns, with a special focus on mobile phones behind the wheel. The latest study by the BIVV found that more and more Belgians are calling behind the wheel. In doing so, we pay special attention to professional drivers, for example, truck drivers or truck drivers or, in Dutch – I’m learning new Dutch words – freight trucks. Indeed, they scored the worst in that area. Therefore, we will work with the industry to raise awareness for these drivers. By the way, bus drivers are very good students, as they score the lowest when it comes to calling behind the wheel.

Finally, I would like to thank all the members of the committee. In fact, in this case I always had the feeling that we had a common goal: road safety.

We have tried to work in a constructive spirit, apart from a few slight differences, and to keep road safety as the objective of this proposal. Everyone has been able to contribute and I am very pleased.